The Estate Officer has jurisdiction to entertain eviction petitions from local authorities against original lessees, despite claims of protection under rent control laws.

ORDER :

(Manish Pitale, J.)

The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, as to whether respondent No.17 - Estate Officer, under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Premises Act', has the jurisdiction to entertain an eviction petition filed by respondent No.1 i.e. Board of Mumbai Port Authority against the petitioners.

2. According to the petitioners, their predecessor and consequently they always had protection under Rent Control Legislations i.e. the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Control Act), earlier in point of time and now, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. If the objection as regards jurisdiction raised by the petitioners is accepted, the eviction proceeding initiated by the respondent No.1 before the respondent No.17 will benipped in the bud and if held otherwise, the proceeding will continue before the respondent No.17.

3. The chronology of events, in brief, leading to filing of the present petition is that the Estate Manager of the predecessor of respondent No.1 i.e. Port of Bombay proposed to grant on lease a plot of land situated at Mazgaon Reclamation Estate, Mumbai. In that regard, the Estate Manager sent a letter to one Dara Sidhwa (predecessor-in-title of the petitioners), specifying the proposed terms and conditions of grant of lease for the said plot. After exchange of communications for certain modifications made to the said proposed terms and conditions, on23.04.1962, the final form of the terms and conditions was determined and by letter dated 04.09.1962, the Estate Manager confirmed the grant of lease to the predecessor of the petitioners.

4. As per clause (v) of the terms and conditions, the predecessor of the petitioners constructed a six-storey building on the said plot of land in the year 1970 and portions of the said building were sublet. It is relevant to note that in the meanwhile, on 28.02.1964, the Bombay Port Trust was created under Section 5 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Subsequently, it was renamed as respondent No.1 i.e. Mumbai Port Authority.

5. In the year 1971, the erstwhile Public Premises Act of 1958 was replaced by the Public Premises Act of 1971. On 20.12.1980, by an Amending Act, the Public Premises Act was amended to specifically include board of trustees constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 in the definition of 'public premises'. In the context of the contentions raised on behalf of the rival parties, it is relevant to note that the Bombay Rent Control Act was amended in the year 1953 to add sub- section (4) in Section 4 of the said Act. This had a bearing on Section4(1) thereof, which specified that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Control Act would not apply to any premises belonging to the Government or a local authority. It is to be noted that Section 4(4)(a) of the Bombay Rent Control Act carved out as an exception to Section 4(1) thereof. On 31.03.2000, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act was enacted and it replaced the Bombay Rent Control Act.

6. On 19.06.2010, the respondent No.1 terminated the lease by issuing a termination letter, stating various grounds for the said action. Since the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners had expired on19.11.2001, his legal heirs responded to the said letter. In this backdrop, on 29.08.2013, respondent No.1 filed eviction petition before the respondent No.17 - Estate Officer for eviction of the petitioners from the premises on various grounds. The respondent No.1 prayed for a decree and order to be issued to the petitioners to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises described in Exhibit-A i.e. the aforesaid plot of land situated at Mazgaon Reclamation Estate, Mumbai. On 29.05.2015, the petitioners filed their written statement and claimed that the aforesaid premises were not covered under the definition of 'public premises' and that the petitioners enjo