spb/- 1 cra238-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 238 OF 2010 Smt. Sunanda S. Javanjal ... Petitioner/ Applicant. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. Rajiv Patil i/by Sameer Singh for the Petitioner/Applicant.. Ms. K.K. Soraan for the Respondent No.1-BMC. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 01st DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 By the present Revision Application, the Petitioner/Applicant challenges the order dated 7th June, 2008 passed by the Principal Judge of City Civil Court at Mumbai, dismissing the Appeal of the revision Applicant against the order of eviction passed by the Enquiry Officer of the Respondent No.1- Municipal Corporation. 2 The respondent no.1 is the owner of the suit premises. The suit premises were allotted by the respondent no.1 to one Shri G.B.Loke on leave and licence basis as staff quarter during the course of his spb/- 2 cra238-10.sxw employment with the Respondent No.1. Shri Loke retired on superannuation w.e.f. 1st of August, 1977 but did not vacate the suit premises. It appears that thereafter under some arrangement with Shri G.B.Loke, the present applicant came in possession of the suit premises. According to the respondent no.1, the license granted to Shri Loke had come to an end on his retirement from service of the respondent no.1 corporation and transfer of the suit premises made by Shri Loke to the applicant was unauthorized. The respondent No.1, therefore, issued a notice, calling upon the applicant to vacate the suit premises and on her failure to comply, the eviction proceedings under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act were initiated against her. 3 The applicant contested the eviction proceedings. According to the applicant the respondent municipal corporation has framed a policy under which all employees of the respondent municipal corporation, occupying different service quarters had formed co-operative societies and a proposal for transfer of the premises to the societies of employees was mooted. Shri Loke, therefore, had a right to occupy the suit premises as member of the society and had transferred the said right to the applicant. Therefore, the possession of the suit premises by the revision applicant was not unauthorized. spb/- 3 cra238-10.sxw 4 The Enquiry Officer of the respondent no.1 held that the suit premises belonged to the respondent- no.1 and were allotted to Shri Loke as a licencee by reason of his being in its employment. On his ceasing to be the employee of the respondent, his licence came to an end and Shri Loke had no right to transfer the premises to a stranger. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer passed an order of eviction. That order has been confirmed by the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court on Appeal. 5 Mr. Rajeev Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that a federation of different societies occupying the different servant quarters belonging to the respondent had filed writ petition no. 1797/2009 in this court for the purpose of implementation of the policy of the respondent municipal corporation to transfer the service apartments to the co-operative societies formed by the employees and therefore, the applicant was entitled to a relief of injunction and pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition. 6 Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the revision applicant fairly conceded that no stay for eviction of the present applicant has been granted by the spb/- 4 cra238-10.sxw court in the pending writ petition. Merely because the writ petition has been filed by the Federation of the Co-operative Societies, that cannot be a ground for admission of the present revision and/or ground for a stay. The revision applicant would be required to establish that she has a good and arguable case for admission of the revision application. 7 Admittedly, the revision applicant is not an employee of the respondent municipal corporation and has no connection with the suit premises. The suit premises were not allotted to her by the respondent no.1. The suit premises were allotted to Shri Loke, being employee of the respondent no.1 and his licence to occupy the premises came to an end on his superannuation. He had no right to transfer the premises to a stranger. In the circumstances, no case is made out by the applicant for admission of the revision and she has not prima facie established that she has any right in the suit premises. Consequently, the revision application is rejected summarily. 8 On the request of Shri Patil, learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is granted time of six months to vacate the suit premises subject to a condition that she files an undertaking of herself and of her family members that she would vacate the suit premises and hand over spb/- 5 cra238-10.sxw possession thereof to the respondent no.1 at the end of six months. In the undertaking she shall state the names and age of her family members who are living with her in the suit premises and also file undertaking of all major persons in the family. Undertaking should be filed within two weeks from today. If the undertaking is filed, the applicant shall not be evicted for a period of six months from today. [D.G. KARNIK, J.] .....