Bombay High Court
Sudarshan Yesudas Maisa vs Estate Officer, Bharat Sanchar ... on 25 June, 2021
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
23-WP-9312-2019 J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9312 OF 2019
Sudarshan Yesudas Maisa
Age : 61 Years, Occ.: Retired,
Residing at Flat No. A-9/3,
P and T Colony, Vakola,
Near Military Camp, Santacruz (E),
Mumbai-29 ...Petitioner
vs.
1) Estate Officer,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
General Manager (HR Administration),
Maharashtra Telecom Circle, 3rd Floor,
A Wing, Administrative Building,
Juhu Road, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai-54.
2) General Manager (HR Administration),
Maharashtra Telecom Circle, 3rd Floor,
A Wing, Administrative Building,
Juhu Road, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai-54. ...Respondents
Mr.Kishor Patil a/w. Mr. Pratik Rahade for petitioner.
Mr. Sachin Chavan for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 25, 2021
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of
the learned counsels for the parties, heard finally at the stage of
admission.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order
Shraddha Talekar, PS 1/5
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2021 05:05:46 :::
23-WP-9312-2019 J.doc
dated 13th August 2019, passed by the learned Principal Judge, City
Civil Court, Bombay, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 100 of 2017,
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 9 of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 ('the
Act, 1971') came to be dismissed.
3. The background facts leading to this petition can be stated, in
brief, as under :-
(a) The petitioner was an employee of Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited. The petitioner was allotted a residential
accommodation bearing No.A-9/3, Type III, P and T
Colony, Vakola, Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400 029 ('the
subject premises'). The petitioner superannuated on 29 th
February 2016. Upon the request of the petitioner, he was
allowed to retain the subject premises upto 31 st October
2016, the maximum permissible period (eight months)
under the Policy.
(b) The petitioner did not vacate the premises despite
the expiry of extended period. Hence, by the eviction
order, dated 6th September 2017 passed in exercise of the
powers under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act,
Shraddha Talekar, PS 2/5
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2021 05:05:46 :::
23-WP-9312-2019 J.doc
1971, the petitioner was directed to vacate the subject
premises within 15 days. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred an appeal under section 9 of the Act, 1971.
(c) By the impugned order, the learned Principal Judge,
City Civil Court, Bombay, was persuaded to dismiss the
appeal. The principal ground urged before the Appellate
Court as well as this Court is that the order of eviction
was not preceded by a notice. Nor an effective
opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner
before passing the eviction order dated 6 th September
2017.
(d) The learned Principal Judge was not persuaded to
accede to the submissions on behalf of the petitioner as
the petitioner had already ceased to be in the
employment of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and even
the maximum permissible retention period had elapsed.
Thus, the petitioner had no right to seek retention of the
subject premises.
4. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge
that the aforesaid approach of the Appellate Court is not legally
Shraddha Talekar, PS 3/5
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2021 05:05:46 :::
23-WP-9312-2019 J.doc
sustainable. As a matter of fact, no notice was issued to the
petitioner under section 4 of the Act, 1971 and the Eviction Order
under section 5(1) of the Act, 1971 was passed straightaway. The
fact that the petitioner superannuated could not have been construed
to deprive the petitioner of an effective opportunity of hearing in
consonance with the statutory provisions and principles of natural
justice, urged Mr. Patil.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
supported the impugned order. It was urged that the orders, whereby
the retention was granted to the petitioner, specifically provided that
after the expiry of the extended period stipulated therein, the
petitioner would vacate the subject premises on his own. Since the
petitioner has retired long back, there is no semblance of right in the
petitioner to continue to occupy the subject premises, for any reason
whatsoever.
6. Indubitably, the petitioner has ceased to be in the employment
of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited with effect from 29 th February
2016. He was granted the privilege to retain the subject premises for
eight months, the maximum permissible under the Policy. The
learned Principal Judge considered the challenge on the ground of
Shraddha Talekar, PS 4/5
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2021 05:05:46 :::
23-WP-9312-2019 J.doc
want of notice. But in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, which
stare in the face, found that the said challenge did not merit
acceptance.
7. The aforesaid approach of the learned Principal Judge does not
seem to be unjustifiable. Having superannuated in the year 2016 and
enjoyed the maximum period of retention post retirement, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a grievance that the order of
eviction was passed without giving notice under section 4 of the Act,
1971 or providing an effective opportunity of hearing. In any event,
the petitioner is not entitled to retain the official quarter having
superannuated, more than four years ago.
8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, in exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.
Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Thus, the following order :
O R D E R
The petition stands dismissed.
Rule discharged.
No costs.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)
Shraddha Talekar, PS 5/5
