-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.4190 of 2007 Rangaswamy Thangavelu ..Petitioner vs. 1. Administrative Officer III Directorate of Construcdtion Services and Estate Management (Enforcement Section) and others ..Respondents Shri N.J.Patil i/b Shri Mohan Shetty for petitioner Shri G.N,.Srinivasan with Shri G.Hariharan i/b Shri H.D.Rathod for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 7th January, 2008 7th January, 2008 7th January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the impugned order. 2. There is concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner had inducted one Jagdish in the business which was being conducted from the public premises. Initially the case which was set up by the petitioner was relationship of employer and employee between him and Jagdish. He sought to produce salary slip evidencing this relationship. However, the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority have found that beyond producing this the contents thereof have not -2- been proved by establishing and proving the relationship. Burden was upon the petitioner to prove the relationship. When he has not denied the induction of Jagdish into the premises but has claimed that induction was not violating the terms and conditions of allotment, then, it was for him to establish that there is no subletting or that Jagdish cannot claim any independent right. He cannot call upon the authority to summon Jagdish and to prove the fact which was exclusively within his knowledge. In such circumstances, when it is undisputed that the petitioner had inducted the third party in the premises, the order of eviction does not suffer from any error apparent or perversity. Petition is accordingly dismissed. 3. However, Shri Patil submits that the said Jagdish was inducted temporarily as the petitioner was ailing. The petitioner has been allotted the premises from 1985 and for brief period sought assistance of the said Jagdish. Now, the petitioner is fit to continue the business activities. He submits that the business is of selling vegetables and fruits. That is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that this -3- Court should direct the authority to take a sympathetic view of the matter and if they are desirous of allotting the premises to somebody else then the petitioner should also be considered. 4. It is not for me to pass such a direction and order. It is for the authorities to decide as to how they should put the public premises to best use and in public interest. If they desire that allotment should be made for selling vegetables and fruits, then, I have no doubt in my mind that considering the duration for which the petitioner was conducting the business, they would take into account his request and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)