JUDGMENT

1. Petition raises challenge to the order dated 25/2/2020 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Misc. Appeal No. 167 of 2019 at the behest of the Petitioner wherein order of eviction passed under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for the sake of brevity) came to be confirmed.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the present Petition are as under:-

3. According to the Petitioner, by virtue of an agreement dated 14/5/1973, she was permitted to run Hindustan Petroleum Gas Agency at Shop T-19/19 in Regimental Shop in old Navy Nagar, Colaba, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "shop" for the sake of brevity). It is the case of the Petitioner that leave and license agreement was continued from time to time and the said period was to come to an end on 30/4/2019. The Respondents were in need of the said area as they intend to develop integrated multi-utility complex. Hence, eviction of the Petitioner was sought and notice was served on the Petitioner under Section 4 of the said Act.

4. After hearing the Petitioner, Respondent/Estate Officer passed the order impugned dated 28/10/2019 in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act, thereby ordering eviction of the Petitioner and all other persons claiming through her to be in occupation of the scheduled premises to be vacated within 15 days from the date of publication of the order of eviction. The said order of eviction came to be challenged in an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 167 of 2019 which also came to be dismissed on 25/2/2020. As such, this Petition.

5. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would invite attention of this Court to the stand of the Petitioner as was taken since inception of the eviction proceedings i.e. Petitioner having regard to her longstanding possession over the scheduled property be granted time of two years to surrender the same. Part of the pleadings in the order of Estate Officer passed on 28/10/2019 in paras 6 and 7 so also other pleadings are sought to be relied on so as to submit that from the day one, there is prayer of the Petitioner for grant of breathing period for surrendering the scheduled premises. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner then would invite attention of this Court to the advance age of the Petitioner and further claim that the Petitioner is catering about four thousand and odd customers in the very same area and eviction of the Petitioner will render those customers unserved which will adversely reflect on the business of the Petitioner. It is also prayed that some breathing period be granted so as to make an alternate arrangements.

6. Mr. Tiwari then would urge that cause for which eviction is sought is far away from the ground realities as the property is not required by the Respondents for any use much less for the use as has been claimed i.e. development of integrated multi-utility complex. By inviting attention of this Court to the provisions of the said Act, he would urge that having regard to pandemic situation Court should show indulgence thereby restraining the Respondents from evicting the Petitioner under the provisions of the said Act, as the Petitioner is ready and willing to vacate the scheduled premises within a period of two years by furnishing an undertaking to this Court.

7. While countering the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sonawane, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Union of India would strenuously urge that there is no absolute right in favour of the Petitioner to continue in the suit premises as the period prescribed in leave and license agreement has already come to an end. According to him, plea of giving undertaking and granting breathing period of two years was already rejected by the authorities and as such the Petitioner was well aware about consequences of eviction proceedings well in advance. The learned Counsel for the Respondents then would invite attention