The court emphasized that eviction under the Public Premises Act requires subjective satisfaction of unauthorized occupation, ensuring fairness in administrative actions.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

1. Since the issue involved in all the Petitions is similar, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. Since the Writ Petition No. 2519/2024 is taken as lead Petition, the facts and contentions of the said Writ Petition are considered for adjudication of the issue involved in all the Petitions.

3. The present Petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 30/03/2024 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, thereby rejecting the Application for grant of stay filed by the Petitioner in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2023 to the order dated 28/07/2023 passed by the Respondent-Estate Officer, whereby the Respondent-Estate Officer has directed the Petitioner to vacate the shop premises in question.

4. The facts giving rise for filing of the present Writ Petition are as under.

5. Shop No. 36 situated in the Complex of Ballarpur Railway Station belongs to the Respondent-Union of India. The said shop was let out by the Respondent-Union of India to Shahiraj Alone for running his Xerox Centre. A Lease Deed was executed in favour of Shahiraj Alone, which was subsequently revised on 20/01/1993. The said Shahiraj Alone entered into partnership with one Namdeo Lokhande for running the business at the said shop. Shahiraj Alone and Namdeo Lokhande ended the said partnership vide agreement dated 08/09/1988. Under the said agreement, Shahiraj Alone permitted Namdeo Lokhande for running business in the said shop. Thereafter, Shahiraj Alone retired from the said partnership. Namdeo Lokhande was occupying the said shop premises and was running the business of Xerox Centre. Thereafter, Namdeo Lokhande inducted the Petitioner's father, namely Shamrao Satpute, as a Partner and accordingly, a Partnership Deed dated 16/09/1991 was executed between them. Namdeo Lokhande retired and the Petitioner's father Shamrao Satpute was running the business of xerox and computer from the said shop premises. For more than 30 years, the father of the Petitioner, and thereafter, the Petitioner himself has been running the business from the said shop premises.

6. It is submitted that since the Lease Deed was not in the name of Petitioner, but was in the name of Shahiraj Alone, the Petitioner issued a letter dated 14/07/2005 to the Respondent No. 1-Union of India requesting for execution of Lease Deed in his favour. In response to the said letter, the Respondent-Union of India issued a letter dated 28/10/2005 expressing its willingness to execute the Lease Deed in favour of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has been in occupation of the shop premises for last more than 30 years and has been paying rent to the Respondent-Union of India, so also paying taxes to the Nagar Parishad, Ballarpur regularly. The Petitioner paid rent by issuing account payee cheques in the name of Respondent-Union of India. The said cheque's were encashed by the said Respondent without any demur.

7. In the year 2021, Shahiraj Alone, who was the original lessee, passed away. His son, namely Kamal Shahiraj Alone, approached the Petitioner and asked him to vacate the shop premises. The Petitioner refused stating that he has been in occupation of the shop premises for last more than 30 years. Thereupon, Kamal Shahiraj Alone threatened the Petitioner to vacate the suit premises, failing which he would lodge a Complaint with the Respondent-Union of India for eviction of the Petitioner on the ground of unauthorized occupation. The Petitioner moved another Application dated 29/12/2021 to the Respondent-Union of India requesting to execute the Lease Deed in his favour. In response to the said Application, the Respondent-Union of India issued reply dated 31/01/2022 stating that the Petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the shop premises in question and no Lease-Deed has been executed in his f