IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5217 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5217 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5217 OF 2008 Laxmikant Anant Naik ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Civil Engineer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & ors. ... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 2008 Subhash S. Jadhav. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Civil Engineer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & ors. ... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5220 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5220 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5220 OF 2008 Meera Shridhar Katare. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Civil Engineer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & ors. ... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5223 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5223 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5223 OF 2008 Smt.Rajashri Bhikaji Jadhav ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Civil Engineer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & ors. ... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5225 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5225 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5225 OF 2008 Peter P. Almeida ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Civil Engineer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & ors. ... Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5226 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5226 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5226 OF 2008 Palabhai Khodabhai Gujaria ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Civil Engineer, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & ors. ... Respondents. D.R.Shah for the petitioners. H.V.Kode for respondent Nos.1 and 2. V.A.Sonpal, AGP for respondent No.4. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 11th November 2008. DATED: 11th November 2008. DATED: 11th November 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . All these petitions filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the order of the Bombay City Civil Court at Mumbai in misc. appeals preferred against the orders passed in eviction cases; initiated against the petitioners by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ("MSRTC" for short); involving common facts and identical challenges though the petitioners are different as such all petitions were heard together and are being disposed of finally at the stage of admission by consent of parties. 2. In all these cases, the petitioners are claiming that the action taken by the MSRTC is contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 ("Eviction Act" for short). - 3 - 3. At the cost of repetition, it will not be out of place to mention that all the impugned orders are dated 7th June, 2008. The orders are separate, but the contents and factual as well as legal findings are identical. The petitioners are claiming that they are occupying the premises under Hire Purchase Scheme. The subject premises were leased out to the MSRTC by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ("MHADA" for short) to the petitioners. The MSRTC has stepped into the shoes of the MHADA as such MSRTC is bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment. 4. In most of the cases, the premises were allotted to the employees of the MSRTC. The original occupants are dead. Their legal heirs have filed these petitions. 5. The factual matrix in any of the matters does not justify invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, all these petitions are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. So far as Article 227 is concerned, the challenge set up is also misplaced. The Principal Judge of the City Civil Court has considered the submission made by the petitioners and come to the - 4 - conclusion that none of the petitioners has legal right to continue with the possession of the premises and that the action taken under the provisions of the Eviction Act is legal and proper. 7. At this juncture, it will not be out of place to mention that the civil suits filed by each of the petitioners having been dismissed, the same contentions once again cannot be allowed to be raised in these petitions. Alternatively, assuming that the petitioners can agitate their rights, but on merits none of the petitioners could establish legal right vis-a-vis occupied tenement. In the result, all these petitions are without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, for the reasons recorded as well as for for the reasons recorded in the impugned orders with which I concur, all these petitions are dismissed in terms of this order with no order as to costs. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be granted time to vacate the premises. So far as Writ Petition Nos.5220, 5225 and 5226/2008 are concerned, the petitioners therein are not in possession of the - 5 - subject premises. Whereas I am informed, during the course of oral submissions, that the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.5217, 5218 and 5223/2008 are in actual possession of the premises occupied by them. 10. In the above view of the matter, so far as three petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos.5217, 5218 and 5223/2008 are concerned, the petitioners therein are granted three months time to vacate the subject premises. However, so far as other petitioners are concerned, none of them being in possession of the subject premises, it is not necessary to grant them time to vacate the premises. The time to vacate so granted in the three writ petitions named herein shall be subject to the execution of usual undertaking by the petitioners that they shall not create third party interest and shall not part with the possession of the subject premises in any manner whatsoever. The undertakings to be signed by all the adult members of the families of the petitioners and shall be filed within two week from today. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)