The necessity for eviction must be justified in addition to establishing unauthorized occupation under the Public Premises Act, as reaffirmed by prior judicial interpretations.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr Chodankar, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr Lotlikar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing with Ms. Volvoikar for the Respondent.

2. The challenge in this Petition is to the judgment and order dated 11.07.2008 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 32/2006, by which, the learned District Judge, acting as the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (said Act), has set aside the Estate Officer’s judgment and order dated 08.03.2006 in Case No. PP(E)/01/06, ordering the eviction of the Respondent on the ground that she was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises, which is Shop No. 14 in the Indian Navy Shopping Complex at Varunapuri, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa (public premises).

3. Mr Chodankar submitted that there is no dispute about the premises being “public premises” under the provisions of the said Act. He submitted that the Appellate Authority, by the impugned order, has recorded a finding that the Respondent was indeed in “unauthorized occupation” of the public premises. his finding has not even been challenged by the Respondent. In these circumstances, Mr Chodankar submitted that the order of eviction had to follow as a necessary sequitur. The impugned judgment and order, to that extent, takes a contrary view, vitiated by illegality and perversity, thereby warranting its interference by this Court.

4. Mr Chodankar submitted that the notices issued to the Respondent before initiating or at the parting of initiating the proceedings were legal and valid, and there was no infirmity therein to the extent that the impugned judgment and order hold otherwise that there is illegality and perversity, thereby warranting interference with the impugned judgment and order by this Court.

5. Without prejudice, Mr Chodankar submitted that these premises and the entire shopping complex are now dilapidated and are a necessity for redevelopment. He submitted that this Court should permit the Petitioner to redevelop the premises, leaving open the issue of entitlement of the Respondent to some rights or premises in the redeveloped project. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another Vs. Vita , Civil Appeal No. 2638 of 2023 decided on 11.12.2025.

6. Mr Lotlikar, the learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent, submitted that the Respondent was not allotted these premises as a service quarter whilst in service. He submitted that the allotment was under a scheme for the benefit of retired Naval Officers. He, therefore, submitted that strictly speaking, the premises in question may not answer the definition of public premises.

7. In any event, without prejudice, Mr Lotlikar submitted that the notice dated 09.01.2006, upon which, the Estate Officer’s eviction order was based, was ex-facie in breach of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act, as interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Minoo Framroze Balsara Vs. the Union of India and Others , AIR 1992 Bom 375 . Therefore, he submitted that any proceedings based upon such a grossly defective notice were incompetent and correctly interfered with by the Appellate Authority.

8. Mr Lotlikar submitted that the finding in the impugned order about the Respondent being an unauthorised occupant is also vulnerable, and the Respondent should be allowed to challenge the same even without the necessity of filing separate proceedings. He submitted that typically, Petitions are