Gujarat High Court
Raghvendra Bajranglal Dhrut vs Manager on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7368 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7369 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7370 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7371 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7372 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7373 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7374 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7375 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7376 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7377 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7378 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7379 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7380 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7381 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7395 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7396 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7397 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7398 of 2017
With
Page 1 of 33
Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7399 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7400 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAGHVENDRA BAJRANGLAL DHRUT
Versus
MANAGER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJU K KOTHARI(2789) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV G DESAI(290) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 09/09/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr.Pranav G. Desai waives service of notice of Rule for respondents.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Tejas P. Satta for the petitioners and learned Advocate Mr.Pranav G. Desai for the respondents at length.
3. All these batch of petitions filed by persons who are claimed Page 2 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined to be unauthorized occupants of public premises in question, which are the subject matter of these batch of petitions. By way of impugned order, petitioners are evicted by respondents as per the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971").
4. At the outset, learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties have confirmed that the facts and issue germane in all these batch of petitions are common. So, they requested this Court to hear the lead matter i.e. Special Civil Application No. 7368 of 2017 and accordingly requested to pass the common judgment/order in all these matters.
5. All these writ applications having so filed under Articles - 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. But, considering the prayers made therein wherein no Writ prayed for by petitioners, as well as all these batch of writ applications placed before this Court, having assigned roster of dealing with the orders of the Trial Courts, it would be treated as having been filed only under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. To have more clarity on the aforesaid, I would like to reproduce the prayers made in Special Civil Application No. 7368 of 2017, which read as under:
Page 3 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined "(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned Orders passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.23 of 2015 by the Additional Principal Judge, Court No.2, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad as well as the Order dated 14-07-2015 passed by the Estate Officer, Bank of Baroda in the interest of justice.
(b) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant stay with regard to the effect and implementation of the impugned Orders passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.23 of 2015 by the Additional Principal Judge, Court No.2, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad as well as the Order dated 14-07-2015 passed by the Estate Officer, Bank of Baroda and be pleased to protect the possession / occupation of the Petitioner qua the disputed premises as mentioned in the Memo of Petition.
(c) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 from taking any coercive actions against the Petitioner qua possession and occupation of the disputed premises.
(d) Such other and further relief/s as the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may please be granted to the Petitioner."
7. THE SHORT FACTS OF S.C.A. NO. 7368 OF 2017 APPEARS TO BE THAT:
7.1. The respondent No. 1, Bank of Baroda, having long leased say 999 years of premises situated at City Survey No. 1620(P), 1618 and 1621 of Ward Railwaypura, Maskati Market, Sakar Bajar, Ahmedabad, which was leased out by its original owner in favour of Bank, albeit with a sitting tenants. There are different shops constructed by respondent No. 1 having rebuilt the old structure, wherein, tenants who Page 4 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined were sitting one given occupation at given point of time somewhere after year 1966.
7.2. The respondent-Bank, having came to know that there are number of shops which were occupied by sitting tenants prior to getting the lease, were later on sublet in favour of third party without getting any prior approval and/or any authorization from the respondent-Bank. So, through respondent No. 2 being the Estate Officer so appointed under Act, 1971, the respondent-Bank initiated action against those unauthorized occupants in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1971.
7.3. The Estate Officer of the respondent-Bank issued show cause notice on 2nd January 2014 to petitioner as per Section-4 of Act, 1971, and so also afforded personal hearing to petitioner- unauthorized occupant, on 17th January, 2014. 7.4. Having heard petitioner, the impugned order dated 14th July 2015 came to be passed by respondent No. 2-the Estate Officer against petitioner whereby ordered his eviction. It would suggest from his order that during the course of personal hearing, petitioner confirmed the fact that the shop which is occupied by him is owned by the bank. He is not having any authorization from the bank to occupy it. But the petitioner informed that he had purchased it from one Page 5 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined Manojkumar Navneetlal in the year 2009 with its goodwill by way of registered deed dated 14th September 2009. 7.5. Having found that the premises in question is unauthorisedly occupied by the petitioner without consent and authorization from the respondent-Bank, thus, exercised its power under Section-5 of the Act, 1971, passed an order of eviction against the petitioner.
7.6. The petitioner carried the matter further before the Appellate Court having filed an appeal under Section-9 of Act, 1971, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2015. The petitioner in his appeal pressed into service legal contentions, including challenged appointment in turn authority of the Estate Officer who passed the eviction order against him. According to the petitioner, Estate Officer so appointed was not authorized under law and cannot be termed as Estate Officer, inasmuch as no notification was issued by the Government of India appointing him as an Estate Officer; rather, there was a delegation of power by one Mr.P. C. Soni, the Deputy General Manager of Bank of Baroda, authorizing him to act as an Estate Officer, which would not permissible in law. 7.7. The petitioner also disputed the act of the petitioner having exercising its power under Act, 1971, inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, he is a protected tenant under the Bombay Page 6 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined Rent Act. When the bank owned the premises with sitting tenant, for eviction of any tenant of such premises, the bank was required to initiate action as per the provisions of the Rent Act, and not under Act, 1971.
7.8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and after examined the provisions of Act, 1971, the Appellate Court not found any merit in any of the submissions so canvassed by the petitioner, thus, dismissed the appeal with costs.
7.9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with such dismissal, he preferred the present writ application. Likewise, having so stated herein above, other petitioners are also similarly situated faced same kind of the orders.
8. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER-UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANT:
8.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Satta would submit that the order passed by the Estate Officer, having been confirmed by the District Court, is required to be interfered with by this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the order passed by the Estate Officer is ex facie without jurisdiction. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Act, 1971, unless there is notification having so appointed any officer of statutory authority to act Page 7 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined as an Estate Officer, no other officer of such statutory authority can act as an Estate Officer.
8.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Satta would respectfully submit that respondent No. 2-the Estate Officer who passed the impugned order dated 14th July 2015, is not authorized to act as an Estate Officer as per the provisions of Act, 1971. It is submitted that as per letter dated 19th September 2013, the Head Office of Bank of Baroda (respondent No. 1 herein) had appointed Mr. Ajaykumar, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda to act as an Estate Officer under Act, 1971, which is dehors the provisions of Act, 1971. It is submitted that unless, the name of Ajaykumar, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda notified in the notification issued by the Government of India to be act as an Estate Officer, Mr. Ajaykumar could not have acted as an Estate Officer and accordingly, could not have passed an impugned order of eviction under Act, 1971 in this matter. 8.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Satta would submit that the petitioner cannot be treated as unauthorized occupant of public premises as per the provisions of Act, 1971 and the order of his eviction is contrary to law. It is submitted that petitioner having so purchased business/goodwill from sitting tenant, Mr. Manojkumar Navneetlal happens to be partner of M/s. Manojkumar Navneetlal on 14th September 2009, he would Page 8 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined step into shoe of the sitting tenant. Whereby, the protection which was available to the sitting tenant i.e. M/s. Manojkumar Navneetlal would also be available to the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Suhas H. Pophale V/s. Orental Insurance Company reported in (2014) 4 SCC 657, action initiated by the respondents under Act, 1971, without jurisdiction, requires to be quashed and set aside by this Court.
8.4. Learned Advocate Mr. Satta would further submit that when the petitioner cannot be treated as an unauthorized occupant but he is protected tenant under the Rent Act. So, even if respondent-Bank wants to evict him, it needs to institute rent suit against him before competent court established under law. It is respectfully submitted that when tenant is protected under the provisions of the Rent Act, his eviction cannot be passed under any other law, including Act, 1971. 8.5. Lastly, learned Advocate Mr. Satta would submit that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to submit his case before respondent No. 2-the Estate Officer, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that neither any issues framed nor any evidence led by the respective parties to prove its case. So, there is a Page 9 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined violation of rule of procedure which requires to be corrected by this Court in the interest of justice. 8.6. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Satta would request this Court to allow all writ applications as the issues germane in all these matters are common.
9. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS-BANK:
9.1. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Desai, appearing for the respondents, would submit that there is no merit in the writ applications, inasmuch as all petitioners are not only unauthorized occupants of premises in question, but till date, no mesne profit has been paid by them, still they are using the public premises dehors the provisions of law. It is submitted that when petitioners are found to be illegally occupying public premises, no protection can be afforded to such petitioners.
9.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would respectfully submit that as per the order passed by the Estate Officer, it is categorically recorded that the petitioner himself admitted before him that he is not a sitting tenant but purchased the business/goodwill from sitting tenant in whose favour originally premises was let out by erstwhile owner of premises. Once, such fact surfaced on record and so also categorically recorded in the proceeding before the Estate Page 10 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined Officer, no fault can be found with the impugned order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer.
9.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would submit that it is fallacious to argued, as alleged by the petitioner that Mr. Ajaykumar, who was acted as the Estate Officer, was not authorized officer under Act, 1971, inasmuch as no notification appointing him was issued by the Government of India. He would submit that such argument was dealt with by the District Court in detail while dismissing the appeal. 9.4. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would further submit that there was a notification dated 18th August 1993, issued by the Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), Government of India, published in the Government Gazette, thereby every Chief Manager, Premises and Equipment, Bank of Baroda, Head Office, Mandvi, Baroda, is authorised under the Act, 1971 as an Estate Officer so far as premises belong to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of Bank of Baroda and situated in the State of Gujarat and Union Territory of Daman and Diu. It is submitted that copy of such notification was produced before District Court vide pursis dated 21st March 2017. For ready perusal, he has passed on such copy of notification to this Court which is taken note of by this Court. 9.5. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would further submit that so far Page 11 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined as the authority of the Estate Officer is concerned, undisputedly, petitioner never questioned it when he passed the order of eviction but for the first time, it was taken up before the District Court in the appeal, which could not have been permitted in law. It is submitted that the petitioner, at the first available opportunity, could have questioned the authority of the Estate Officer so appointed by the respondent-Bank and having submitted to his jurisdiction being participated in the proceedings, later in point of time, the petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate that the Estate Officer was not having jurisdiction to act as an Estate Officer as per the provisions of Act, 1971.
9.6. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would further submit that the petitioner undisputedly not a sitting tenant when premises was leased out to the respondent-Bank, thereby, no protection under the Rent Act would be available to the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that as per own admission of the petitioner, which is so clear from bare reading of deed of goodwill executed between the erstwhile tenant with the petitioner on 14th September 2009 i.e. the petitioner would be treated as a sub-tenant. It is also remained undisputed on record that neither any authorization nor any consent was given by the respondent- Page 12 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined Bank before the execution of the aforesaid deed. It is further submitted that when there is no authorization/consent given by the respondent-Bank, having not accepted the petitioner as its tenant, he would be treated as authorized occupant of premises owned by the respondent-Bank and requires to be evicted as per the provisions of Act, 1971. It is respectfully submitted that even no protection under Rent Act available to the petitioner having entered into premises after year 2002 whereby, so far State of Gujarat is concern, provisions of Gujarat Rent Act, 1949 having suspended thus, not applicable to petitioners.
9.7. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would further submit that all necessary and mandatory requirements of procedure envisaged under Act, 1971, observed and followed by the Estate Officer so much so that a personal hearing was accorded to the petitioner, which is reflected in the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer. It is respectfully submitted that before the District Court, the entire record and proceedings have been submitted for ready perusal of the Appellate Court, which confirmed that there is no violation of principles of natural justice by the Estate Officer when he passed the order of eviction against the petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that such contention about the Page 13 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined violation of principle of natural justice was not in fact pressed into service before the District Court/Appellate Court, but for the first time, new plea raised by the petitioner, then it should not be accepted by this Court. He would assiduously submit that in light of the fact that undisputedly petitioner is unauthorisedly occupying the premises. 9.8. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai would submit that so far as the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 7368 of 2017 is concerned, as stated in paragraph-4 of affidavit-in-reply that currently another person than the petitioner is occupying premises in question, which amounts to breach of the order passed by this Court i.e. the order of status quo. It is respectfully submitted that when the petitioner has consciously inducted third party during the pendency of the present writ application under the guise and breach of order of status quo, such writ application requires to be dismissed with costs and suitable action may be allowed to be taken by respondent-Bank against the petitioner for breach of injunction order passed by this Court.
9.9. Lastly, learned Advocate Mr. Desai would respectfully submit that the ratio of decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Suhas H. Pophale (supra), would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as all Page 14 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined the petitioners are not sitting tenants of the premises in question when occupied by the respondent-Bank. According to him, all petitioners are sub-tenants, who are unauthorisedly occupying premises without any authorization and consent obtained from the respondent-Bank. So, according to him, all petitioners are not entitled to claim that rigors of the provisions of Act, 1971, would not be applicable to them and also, could not allow to take protection/shield of Gujarat Rent Act, 1949.
9.10. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Desai would request this Court to dismiss all these writ applications with costs.
10. No other and further submissions are made.
11. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
(i). Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Estate Officer who was appointed by the respondent-Bank could not be said to be the Estate Officer as per the provisions of Act, 1971?
(ii). Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners would be treated as unauthorised occupants of premises in question as their occupying premises in question would be unauthorised occupation as per Act, Page 15 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 1971?
(iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, due procedure followed by Estate Officer before passing the impugned order of eviction under Act, 1971?
ANALYSIS Point No.(i)
12. The facts which are narrated hereinabove are not in dispute.
It is remained undisputed having admitted by the petitioner before the Estate Officer during the course of hearing envisaged as per the provisions of the Act, 1971 that he has purchased the goodwill/business from erstwhile tenant of the respondent-Bank in the year 2009. It has also been admitted by him and he is unable to controvert the fact that before executing any deed of goodwill in his favour, neither the petitioner nor erstwhile tenant obtained any consent/sanction/authorization from the respondent-Bank. In light of all these undisputed facts came on record, the respondent-Bank was well within its rights to evict such unauthorized occupant from premises owned by the respondent-Bank being public premises.
13. It is not in dispute that premises occupied by petitioners is a public premises as per Act, 1971. The dispute which was Page 16 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined raised before the District Court and this Court that the Estate Officer, namely Ajaykumar, appointed by the respondent- Bank, was not an Estate Officer as per the provisions of Act, 1971. The District Court having already dealt with this contention while discussing/answering it in paragraph-15 of its impugned judgment/order. As such, I am incomplete agreement with the view taken by the Appellate Court so far as this contention about irregular/inappropriate appointment of the Estate Officer appears to have been raised for the first time before the Appellate Court.
14. As such, this contention in regards to no authority of Estate Officer ought to have been raised by the petitioner especially at the first available opportunity when appeared before the Estate Officer. Learned Advocate Mr. Satta would unable to reply and confirm such contention was ever raised before the Estate Officer, although not disputing the facts so recorded by the Estate Officer in his impugned order.
15. Be that as it may, to appreciate such contention and to clear the so-called cloud surrounded by the petitioner on such issue, I would like to first rely upon few provisions of the 1971 Act, which read as under:
"Section-2. Definitions :- In this Act, unless the context other wise requires,--
Page 17 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined (a) ...... (b) "estate officer" means an officer
appointed as such by the Central Government under Section 3;
Section-3. Appointment of estate officers :-
The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,--
(a) appoint such persons, being gazetted officers of Government [or of the Government of any Union Territory] or officers of equivalent rank of the [statutory authority], as it thinks fit, to be estate officers for the purposes of this Act;[*] [Provided that no officer of the Secretariat of the Rajya Sabha shall be so appointed except after consultation with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and no officer of the Secretariat of the Lok Sabha shall be so appointed except after consultation with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha;
Provided further that an officer of a statutory authority shall only be appointed as an estate officer in respect of the public premises controlled by that authority; and]
(b) define the local limits within which, or the categories of public premises in respect of which, the estate officers shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on estate officers by or under this Act."
16. The bare reading of the aforesaid provisions would suggest that a person can be appointed as an Estate Officer by way of notification. Learned Advocate Mr. Desai, during the course Page 18 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined of his submissions, placed reliance upon such notification issued by the Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), Government of India, dated 18th August 1993, which appears to have been issued as per Section-3 of Act, 1971. Such Notification already submitted before the District Court. Wherein, the relevant portion of said notification reads as under:
TABLE Designation of the Categories of public premises Officer and local limits of jurisdiction (1) (2)
4. The Chief Manager, Premises belonging to, or taken Premises and on lease by, or on behalf of Bank Equipments, Bank of of Baroda and situated in the Baroda, Head Office, State of Gujarat and the Union Mandavi, Baroda. territory of Daman and Diu.
17. The reading of said notification would clear all doubts in anyone's mind, thereby, there is no scintilla of doubt remained that Mr. Ajaykumar, who was appointed as an Estate Officer in the Act, 1971, holding position as the Chief Manager in the respondent-Bank, was authorized to act as the Estate Officer. It is not in dispute that such notification Page 19 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined was made available before the District Court vide pursis dated 21st March 2017 and so also, not in dispute that Mr. Ajaykumar was the Chief Officer but assigned with additional duty vide letter dated 19.09.2013 issued by Deputy General Manager of respondent-Bank, of the Premises & Equipments at Head Office, Baroda (Annexure-C-Page-59).
18. Thus, in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and after going through the notification so issued by the Government of India and so also said letter, I am also of the view that the Estate Officer appointed by the respondent- Bank was authorized to act as an Estate Officer as per the provisions of Act, 1971. Having held so, there is no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by Estate Officer, whereby, ordered eviction of the petitioner, as per Section-5 of Act, 1971. Point No. (i) answered accordingly. Point No. (ii)
19. The next limb of argument of learned Advocate Mr. Satta that the petitioners are protected under the provisions of the Rent Act and as such the provisions of Act, 1971, would not be applicable is concerned, such argument is not only misconceived on facts but also at law. The definition of unauthorized occupation is clearly defined under Act, 1971, which reads as under:
Page 20 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined "Section-2. Definitions :- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(g) "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever."
19.1. It is remained undisputed that the petitioners are not tenant inducted by the respondent-Bank in the premises in question. According to the case of all petitioners, they have been inducted into the premises in question by erstwhile tenant from whom they have purchased original tenants business/goodwill, albeit no sanction/prior consent/ authorization obtained from the respondent-Bank in this regard.
19.2. Once, such facts surfaced on the record, by no stretch of imagination, occupation of any of the petitioners can be termed as authorized occupation, rather as per aforesaid provision, their occupation of premises in question would be termed as unauthorized occupation.
19.3. Having so observed and found that the occupations of petitioners of premises in question are unauthorized Page 21 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined occupations, respondent-Bank well within its right to invoke provisions of Act, 1971 to evict such unauthorized occupants from its premises, which unauthorisedly occupied being public premises.
20. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhas H. Pophale (supra), strong reliance placed by learned Advocate Mr. Satta would not be helpful to him and not even assist him in any manner, rather its counterproductive to petitioner due to what facts emerges on record.
21. The ratio of the aforesaid cited decision would cover those tenants who are sitting tenants when premises owned/leased out to statutory authorities like respondent-Bank, as the case may be, whereby, it has been held that such tenants cannot be evicted as per the provisions of Act, 1971, but such public authority requires to take recourse of the provisions of the Rent Act to evict such tenant.
22. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be observed that none of the petitioners herein are sitting tenants, but undisputedly are sub-tenants having either purchased the business of sitting tenants or their goodwill, as the case may be.
23. At this stage, it would be apt to refer some observations/facts observed by in the case of Suhas H. Pophale (supra), Page 22 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined wherein, guideline issued by the Central Government in regards to action to be taken by public authority under Act, 1971, against unauthorized occupation was referred, which reads thus:
"56. It is relevant to note that there has been a criticism of the use of the powers under the Public Premises Act, and the manner in which they are used in an arbitrary way to evict the genuine tenants from the public premises causing serious hardships to them. The Central Government itself has therefore, issued the guidelines to prevent such arbitrary use of these powers. These guidelines were issued vide Resolution No. 21013/1/2000-Pol. 1, dated 30-5- 2002, published in the Gazette of India, Part I, Sec. 1 dated 8-6-2002. They read as follows:
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA GUIDELINES TO PREVENT ARBITRARY USE OF POWERS TO EVICT GENUINE TENANTS FROM PUBLIC PREMISES UNDER THE CONTROL OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
1. The question of notification of guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants from public premises under the control of public sector undertakings/financial institutions has been under consideration of the Government for some time past.
2. To prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants from public premises and to limit the use of powers by the Estate Officers appointed under Section 3 of the PP (E) Act, 1971, it has been decided by the Government to lay down the following guidelines:
(i) The provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [the PP (E) Act, 1971] should be used Page 23 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined primarily to evict totally unauthorised occupants of the premises of public authorities or subletees, or employees who have ceased to be in their service and thus ineligible for occupation of the premises.
(ii) The provisions of the PP (E) Act, 1971 should not be resorted to either with a commercial motive or to secure vacant possession of the premises in order to accommodate their own employees, where the premises were in occupation of the original tenants to whom the premises were let either by the public authorities or the persons from whom the premises were acquired.
(iii) A person in occupation of any premises should not be treated or declared to be an unauthorised occupant merely on service of notice of termination of tenancy, but the fact of unauthorised occupation shall be decided by following the due procedure of law. Further, the contractual agreement shall not be wound up by taking advantage of the provisions of the PP (E) Act, 1971. At the same time, it will be open to the public authority to secure periodic revision of rent in terms of the provisions of the Rent Control Act in each State or to move under genuine grounds under the Rent Control Act for resuming possession. In other words, the public authorities would have rights similar to private landlords under the Rent Control Act in dealing with genuine legal tenants.
(iv) It is necessary to give no room for
allegations that evictions were
Page 24 of 33
Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
selectively resorted to for the purpose of securing an unwarranted increase in rent, or that a change in tenancy was permitted in order to benefit particular individuals or institutions. In order to avoid such imputations or abuse of discretionary powers, the release of premises or change of tenancy should be decided at the level of Board of Directors of public sector undertakings.
(v) All the public undertakings should immediately review all pending cases before the Estate Officer or courts with reference to these Guidelines, and withdraw eviction proceedings against genuine tenants on grounds otherwise than as provided under these Guidelines. The provisions under the PP (E) Act, 1971 should be used henceforth only in accordance with these Guidelines.
3. These orders take immediate effect."
57. Thus as can be seen from these guidelines, it is emphasised in Clause 2(i) thereof, that the Act was meant to evict (a) totally unauthorised occupants of the public premises or subletees, or (b) employees who have ceased to be in their service, and were ineligible to occupy the premises. In Clause 2(ii), it is emphasised that the provisions should not be resorted to (a) either with a commercial motive, or (b) to secure vacant possession of the premises in order to accommodate their own employees, where the premises were in occupation of the original tenants to whom the premises were let out (i) either by the public authorities, or (ii) by persons from whom the premises were acquired, indicating thereby the Page 25 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined predecessors of the public authorities. Clause 2(iii) of these guidelines is very important. It states on the one hand that it will be open for the public authority to secure periodic revision of rent in terms of the provision of the Rent Control Act in each State, and to move under genuine grounds under the Rent control Act for resuming possession. This clause on the other hand states that the public authorities would have rights similar to private landlords under the Rent Control Act in dealing with genuine legal tenants. This clause in a way indicates that for resuming possession in certain situations, where the tenants are protected under the State Rent Control Act prior to the Public Premises Act becoming applicable, the public authorities will have to move under the Rent Control Acts on the grounds which are available to the private landlords. Clause 2(iv) seeks to prevent imputations or abuse of discretionary powers in this behalf by stating that there should be no room for allegation that evictions were selectively resorted for the purpose of securing an unwarranted increase in rent or change in tenancy to benefit particular individuals or institutions. It, therefore, states that the release of premises or change of tenancy should be decided at the level of Board of Directors of Public Sector Undertakings. Clause 2(v) goes further ahead and instructs all public undertakings that they should review all pending cases before the Estate Officer or courts with reference to these guidelines, and withdraw the proceedings against genuine tenants on grounds otherwise than as provided under the guidelines."
(emphasis supplied) Page 26 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined
24. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, when the occupation of petitioners are found to be unauthorized one, their eviction would be governed by the provisions of the Act, 1971, inasmuch as no protection under the provisions of the Rent Act would be available to such sub-tenant/unauthorized occupant of public premises.
25. Furthermore, in view of S.4 (1-A) of The Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 whereby any tenancy created post 2001 w.e.f. 05.09.2001, would not be governed by Gujarat Rents Act, 1947. In the case on hand, deed of goodwill and induction of petitioner in the public premises done in the year 2009. So, in view of above as well, he cannot sought any protection under Gujarat Rent Act, 1947. Point No.(ii) answered accordingly. Point No. (iii)
26. Learned advocate Mr. Satta tried to develop new plea before this Court having neither complained to Estate Officer nor argued before District Court in regards to violation of principles of natural justice when impugned order of eviction passed by Estate Officer. This Court would not have considered such new plea at this stage but considering the fact that order impugned is eviction, though new plea Page 27 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined examined by this Court in its limited jurisdiction as available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
27. Even though after going through both impugned orders be it passed by Estate Officer or District Court, it is not proved that Estate Officer has not observed principles of natural justice before passing impugned order. It would requires to be noticed that petitioner was heard in person having so appeared before Estate Officer confessed that he was put in occupation of premises in question by erstwhile tenant without sanction/consent/authorization of respondent-Bank. Moreover, as per para-2 of judgement/order of District Court, it appears that notice came to be issued by Estate Officer under section-4 of Act, 1971 was duly received by petitioner but replied through his lawyer wherein he has shown his willingness to settle the matter with Bank.
28. The provisions of Act, 1971 more particularly S.5 under which impugned order came to be passed by Estate Officer is summary procedure wherein no full fledge trial requires to be undertaken by Estate Officer having so argued before District Court. This can be culled out from bare reading of proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 5 of Act, 1971.
29. After going through impugned orders and having notice the aforesaid facts and status of petitioners, I am fully convinced Page 28 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined that principle of natural justice was observed and followed by Estate Officer in the matter. Thus, no fault can be found in this regards.
30. Lastly, this Court would like to observe that it cannot and should not interfered with every order passed by Court like at the drop of a hat. This Court has very limited jurisdiction while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby unless its shown that order impugned is either erroneous, perverse, arbitrary, ex-facie illegal, or contrary to settled principles of law, it should not interfere with the order passed by the Court. The petitioners unable to make out any of such grounds in respective writ applications and as such none of such exist having not found present in the case on hand. In that view of the matter, no interference can be made in the matter. [See - (i) Sameer Suresh Gupta TR PA Holder vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 374 (Para 6 and 7) and (ii) Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181 (Para 15 and 16)]. Point No. (iii) Answered accordingly.
31. In light of the foregoing discussions and reasons, I am not at all impressed by any of the submissions so canvassed by learned Advocate Mr. Satta, rather all such are meticulously dealt with by the Appellate Court/District Court, while Page 29 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined dismissing the appeal. As such, I am in complete agreement with the reasons so assigned by District Court while dismissing the appeals and so also for the forgoing reasons, confirmed the impugned orders passed by Estate Officer in each matter.
32. Before parting with, as it is pointed out by the respondent-
Bank in Paragraph-4 of its reply that so far as writ application being Special Civil Application No. 7386 of 2017 concerned, the petitioner is no more occupying the premises in question, rather, it is now illegally occupied by one M/s. Tanushree Tax Chem, proprietor Prateek. So, requested to take appropriate action against such petitioner for breach of the order passed by this Court directing parties to maintain status-quo.
33. Prima facie, when this Court vide its order dated 12th April 2017, while issuing notice, directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the shop in question. In view of above order, petitioner could not have inducted third party into the premises in question. Such act would tantamount to breach of the order of status quo passed by this Court.
34. In light of said facts and order passed by this Court, in peculiar facts and circumstance of the aforesaid writ application, the respondent-Bank is hereby permitted to take Page 30 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined appropriate legal proceedings against the petitioner of R/SCA/7368/2012 for breach of injunction. Likewise, respondent-Bank is also authorized to evict such third-party occupant of the premises in question, if so required, with the help of police.
35. It appears that all these years, petitioners though could not have been legally allowed to occupy the public premises, but without paying anything including mesne profit to the respondent-Bank, under the protection of the order passed by this Court and so also District Court, enjoyed the occupation of premises in question. Having so come to the conclusion that all petitioners are in fact illegal and unauthorised occupation of premises in question as per the provisions of Act, 1971, they are required to be evicted forthwith from public premises so occupied by them or by their agent or by anyone on their behalf. For which any police protection requires, respondent-Bank may avail it. The police shall at the cost of respondent-bank provide assistance to the respondent-Bank in this regards to get back possession of its premises which in fact public premises as per Act, 1971.
36. According to this Court, petitioners have consumed the time of the District Court and so also this Court by raising frivolous pleas and contentions at different stages of Page 31 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined proceeding and in a case where found their actions without any substance and or any basis, all these writ applications requires to be dismissed with costs, as done so by the District Court having dismissed the appeal with costs. CONCLUSION
37. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not found any of merit in any of these batch of writ applications having so filed and treated to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, all these writ applications require to be dismissed with costs.
38. Having considered aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstance of the case and having so found all petitioners being unauthorised occupants of public premises, enjoyed it without paying anything till date, in view of above, the cost is quantified @ Rs.50,000/- each to be paid by the each petitioner of each writ application to the respondent-Bank. The cost be paid by them to respondent-Bank within period of one month from date of receipt of the copy of this order. If not paid, it is open for respondent-Bank to recover it in accordance with law.
39. The respondent-Bank is hereby authorized and so also permitted to evict all the petitioners pursuant to the order passed by respondent No. 2- the Estate Officer in respective Page 32 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7368/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined cases having so confirmed by District Court and this Court. Such eviction can be done forthwith as this Court hereby vacate the order of status quo. The respondent-Bank may avail assistance of police for smooth and effective eviction of the petitioners including their agents/third party- unauthorised occupants of public premises in question.
40. Accordingly, all these batch of writ applications are dismissed with costs as aforesaid. The orders impugned in these writ applications are hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Nilesh Page 33 of 33 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:46:49 IST 2025