DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of all the Learned Counsel, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. Counsel for the contesting Respondents waive service.

2. The First Petitioner which is a partnership firm of Advocates and Solicitors, obtained under an agreement dated 5 July 1923, premises situated on the third floor of what is known as Central Bank Building at Fort, Mumbai, from the predecessor-in-interest of the Second Respondent. The Second Respondent is the Central Bank of India. On 3 November 1924, a Deed of Assignment was executed between the outgoing partners of the First Petitioner and the continuing partners to which the Second Respondent was a party. The First Petitioner is thus a tenant of the Second Respondent of the premises situated on the third floor since 1923. On 17 October 1961, in a suit which was instituted by the then partners of the First Petitioner against the Third Respondent, Consent Terms were entered into between the parties. Under the Consent Terms, the Third Respondent was treated to have retired from the partnership firm. Clause 17 of the Consent Terms provided that the Third Respondent, so long as he continued to practice as a Lawyer, would be entitled to use a portion of the premises situated on the third floor, more particularly described in the Plan annexed to the Consent Terms. Parties contemplated in Clauses 17 and 18 that an application would be made to the landlord for the creation of a separate tenancy, but until the landlord agreed to do so, the entire rent or compensation of the premises would be paid by the First Petitioner. Under clause 18(b), in the event of the Third Respondent ceasing to use the premises for the purpose of his practice as a lawyer, he was to cease to be entitled to the user of the premises and thereupon the First Petitioner would be entitled to the user thereof.

3. On 7 June 2007, the Second Respondent terminated the tenancy of the Petitioners and in July 2007, an application was moved before the Estate Officer for an order of eviction under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. A notice to show cause was issued to the First Petitioner under Section 4 of the Act on 2 August 2007. The enquiry against the First Petitioner is pending and is numbered as Enquiry 22 of 2007. Separately a notice to show cause has been issued to the Third Respondent in which the enquiry before the Estate Officer (Enquiry 33 of 2007) is stated to be pending. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Third Respondent by a notice addressed to the First Petitioner on 20 November 2009, recorded that he would cease to use premises from 30 November 2009 and that under the Consent Terms, the First Petitioner would be thereafter entitled to use premises. The First Petitioner was requested to fix an appointment for handing over a duplicate key which was in possession of the Third Respondent to the First Petitioner. A similar notice was addressed by the Third Respondent to the Second Respondent. The premises which are in the occupation of the First Petitioner are described in an internal memo of the Second Respondent as Room No.6 situated on the third floor while the premises in occupation of the Third Respondent are described as Room No.11. Admittedly, the rent/compensation for the use of the premises continues to be paid by the First Petitioner.

4. On 27 November 2009, the Estate Officer issued directions to the Third Respondent in Enquiry 33 of 2007, directing him not to hand over keys of the premises to any one else, apart from the applicant Bank or to deposit the keys before the Estate Officer. On 1 December 2009, a further hearing took place before the Estate Officer during the course of which, the Third Respondent stated that the keys of the premises had not been handed over to the First Petitioner and the directions contained in the previous order had not been breached. Nonetheless the Estate Office