-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.4075 of 2007 Smt.Shobha Chandurkar ..Petitioner vs. 1. Competent Authority and another ..Respondents Mr.M.B.Shirsat for petitioner. Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, A.G.P. 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. This writ petition is on the apprehension that the petitioner would be dispossessed by the Authority exercising powers under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction Act), 1955. 2. Having perused the order of the Competent Authority, it is clear that the Competent Authority rendered a finding that the petitioner cannot be evicted on account of inability to pay the enhanced rent. The Competent Authority has held as under: "Perused the papers on record indepth and it is noticed that non residential block No.A-5/1 at G.S.Colony, Bandra (E) -2- was leased out to respondent for dispensary for three years with effect from 4.7.2003 to 3.7.2006 as per agreement dated 4.7.2003. As per condition no.3 of the said Agreement Respondent is liable to pay rent at Rs.2050/- per month for the first year and thereafter an increase of 10% rent every year as agreed by the appklicant in the said agreement. Therefore, in myu opinion, it is not fair and justifiable on the part of applicant to increase the rent at 300% with retrospective effect without giving proper and prior notice to respondent. It is fair on the part of applicant to impose revised rate of rent at the time of renewal of lease agreement. In my opinion Respondent is liable to pay Rs.2050/- per month for the first year and a rise of 10% rent for the second year and again a rise of 10% of the rent for the third year as per the agreement executed by the applicant and respondent. Therefore, respondent is directed to pay -3- the rental arrears as per agreement upto 3.7.2006 within four months from the date of issue of thi order and also renew the lease agreement within the said four months period from the date of issue of this order. Otherwise respondent is liable for eviction from the suit premises and also to pay rent at the rate applicable for third year as per said agreement upto the date of eviction of respondent from the suit premises." 3. A bare perusal of the order and direction of the Competent Authority would show that the Competent Authority directed the petitioner to pay the arrears upto 30th July, 2006 within four months and there is a direction to renew the lease agreement. It is only upon failure to comply with this that the eviction follows and not otherwise. 4. Mr.Shirsat states that the petitioner has remitted the amount till May, 2007 and even thereafter. She is continuing to abide by the order of the Competent Authority. Her applicatin for renewal of the lease is pending. -4- In such circumstances, the respondent must decide with regard to renewal of the lease deed and pass appropriate ordeers on the pending application. Ms.Mhaispurkar states that the same would be done within a period of 8 weeks from today. 5. In such state of affairs, there is no question of petitioner being evicted from the premises. If the petitioner is willing to abide by the terms and conditions of Renewal, then, it is for the respondents to take appropriate decision with regard to the petitioner being allowed to practice from the premises. In case there is any dispute and petitioner does not abide by the terms and conditions, then, it would be open for the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. For the time being, in the peculiar facts of this case and considering the directions of the Competent Authority there is no basis for the apprehension that the petitioner would be evicted without due process of law. The petition is disposed of. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)