JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard with the consent of parties.

2. Brief facts leading for filing the present petition are as under:-

The petitioner is a official tenant in respect of Room No. 429 & 9, Noor Mohammed Beig Compound, Congrees House, in front of Queens Mary School, Mumbai. She is holding the tenancy rights of this two rooms since last more than 30 years. The rent receipt of the said room premises stands on petitioner's name. On earlier, that is in the year 2008, petitioner used to stay along with her family at Pandit Mansion, 3rd Floor, Flat No. 7, Near Apsara Talkied, D.B. Marg, Mumbai, and at that point of time she was not in need of her premises situated at Noor Mohammed Building and therefore in March 2008 she had given her room premises for residing purpose to one Kiran Naidu. At the time of giving said premises, a leave and license Agreement dated 12/03/2008 came to be executed between Petitioner and said Kiran Naidu and thereafter the said Agreement was registered with Sub Registrar of Assurances.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16/12/2009 officers of Respondents have conduced raid at the instance of one Anson Thomas at petitioners room premises, where they found that prostitution business was going on, and accordingly with the help of panch the raid was conducted. During the course of raid, Respondent have rescued 24 women and also arrested three accused by name Kiran Naidu, petitioner herself and one Raju Gupta. In respect of alleged raid, respondent have filed the charge-sheet against the arrested accused in the Special PITA Court at Mazgaon/Mumbai. During the course of trial in all six prosecution witnesses came to be examined and two defense witnesses have also been examined and finally on 17/12/2018 Ld. 54Th Magistrate Court was pleased to convict all the accused for the offences punishable under Section 3, 4, 5 & 7 (1) (b) of PITA Act, 1956. The Ld. Magistrate also directed that the place where the offence was committed stands attached under section 18 (2) of PITA Act for the period of one year.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, in the present case the offence was committed on 16/12/2009 and thereafter the officers of Respondent have sent notice on 4/1/2011 on behalf of Commissioner of Police Mumbai, for eviction and closure of brothel under section 18(1) (a) and 18 (1) (b) of PITA Act, 1956 and pursuant to said notice the petitioners premises was sealed. In fact the said notice dated 4/1/2011 was issued in respect of the present raid of 16/12/2009. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Criminal Application No. 34 of 2011 and challenged the legality and validity of the said notice dated 4/1/2011 and on 22/8/2011 this Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the said Application/Writ Petition, and thereby the Respondents were directed to open the seal.

5. It is submitted that, on earlier occasion this Hon'ble Court was pleased to clearly observed that petitioner had given room premises to one Kiran Naidu on leave and license basis for 22 months, and the said period was to expire on 11/1/2010. In the present case raid was conducted on 16/12/2009 so admittedly, the said premises was within the charge of said Kiran Naidu and present petitioner has nothing to do with said alleged business of prostitution. After considering all circumstances and situation this Court directed to open the seal on petitioners premises. If this is the position then again on the same set of facts, Ld. Magistrate order of directing to seal the premises is absolutely illegal and perverse. It is further submitted that petitioner is bonafied occupier of the said premises and staying with her family at the said premises. Admittedly, rent bill and other documents are in the name of petitioner, and therefore she is entitled for the possession of the said room premises.

6. It is fu