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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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,
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
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,--
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
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
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:
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
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),
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
