This Revision Application is filed by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation challenging the order passed by the learned City Civil Court Judge, Mumbai, dated 2 August 2008 decreeing the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, directing that the possession of the Respondents be restored.

2. Respondents filed a Suit No.4693 of 2001 impleading the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, its Executive Engineer and the Deputy Engineer, as party Defendants. The suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act. The suit was in respect of Plot No.AM-14, Road No.16. Plot No.102 situated in the Industrial Estate at Marol, Andheri, Mumbai. It was the contention of the Respondent/Plaintiff that the Respondent/Plaintiff was carrying on business prior to October 1992. Electric supply was given by the Applicant Corporation to the Respondent/Plaintiff and he was paying the charges regularly. It was the case of the Respondent that on 10 July 1997, notice was issued by Defendant No.3 to the Respondent/Plaintiff questioning the construction activities of the Respondent/Plaintiff. Another notice of 19 November 1995 was issued. It was contended that, all of a sudden on 26 July 2001, the Applicant Corporation started carrying out drive of demolition and the structure in question was demolished and the Respondent/Plaintiff was dispossessed some time around 1 August 2001. It was contended that this action of the Corporation was without following due process of law. Accordingly, the relief of restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was sought.

3. The Applicant Corporation filed written statement and contended that various orders were passed by the Division Bench of this court in Public Interest Litigation No.91 of 2000 for removal of encroachments and road widening in the Marol industrial area. It was contended that the Respondents have encroached and constructed unauthorized constructions in the suit plot and inspite of notice dated 10 July 1997 and 19 November 1999, the structures were not removed, neither any permission or sanctioned plan was produced and, therefore, the demolition was carried out. Accordingly, the Applicant Corporation resisted the prayers sought for by the Respondent/Plaintiff.

4. The learned City Civil Court Judge, after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that the Applicant Corporation did not follow the procedure laid down under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, which has been made applicable to the Applicant Corporation and since due process of law was not followed the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff was required to be decreed, and accordingly by the impugned order it was so decreed.

5. I have heard Mr. Chavan, learned counsel for the Applicants and Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the Respondents.

6. The fact that notices were issued to the Respondent/Plaintiff on 10 July 1997 and 19 November 1999 calling upon the Respondent/Plaintiff to show cause as regard the legality of the structure, is not in dispute. The suit having been instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the short question that arose for consideration was, whether the Applicant Corporation followed the due process of law. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned City Civil Court Judge, after recording the fact that notices were issued, has straightway gone by the provisions under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 and held that the procedure laid down under Section 4 of the Act was not followed.

7. The Applicant Corporation has been designated as Special Planning authority by virtue of Section 40 (1)(a) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (M.R.T.P. Act). The Applicant Corporation is a special Planning Authority for the industrial area where the suit plot situated. Section 40 (1)(a) reads thus :

'40. Special Planning Authority for developing certain notified areas: (1) The State Government may, by