PP Act prevails over state rent acts for evicting unauthorized occupants from public premises, including pre-existing tenancies post-acquisition; unauthorized assignment, decades-long rent default, and subletting justify eviction despite prior rent decree.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners assail the judgment and order dated 25 February 2021 passed by the learned District Judge 1, Pune in Public Premises Eviction Appeal No.10 of 2019. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner has been dismissed, thereby confirming the eviction order dated 8 July 2019 passed by the Estate Officer. By the eviction order, Petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises in question by handing over possession thereof to the Respondent-Bank.

2) Shop No. 1 situated on the ground floor of the structure situated at City Survey No. 761(old city survey no.607) Sadashiv Peth, Pune comprising of two rooms and admeasuring 120 Sq. ft are the suit premises. The suit premises are located in the structure owned by the Bank of Karad. Shri. Dattatray Baburao Doiphode was the tenant in respect of the suit premises. The Bank of Karad filed Suit No. 2914 of 1969 in the court of Small Causes, Pune, seeking eviction of Shri. Dattatray Baburao Doiphode interalia on the ground of bonafide requirement and for reconstruction of the structure by demolishing the old structure. Eviction was also sought on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The Suit came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 25 August 1971. The Bank of Karad filed Civil Appeal No. 954 of 1971 challenging the decree of the Trial Court. The Appeal was allowed by the District Court by judgment and order dated 12 September 1972 directing the tenant-Shri. Dattatray Baburao Doiphode to vacate the tenanted premises on the ground enumerated in Section 13 (1)(hh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947. (the Bombay Rent Act). The eviction was thus ordered for bonafide and reasonable requirement of immediate demolition of the suit structure and for construction of the new building. Bank of Karad filed Execution Petition No. 221 of 1973 in the court of Small Causes, Pune. However, the Execution Petition was dismissed for failure to take steps for execution of the possession warrant by order dated 16 March 1989.

3) According to the Petitioner, he entered into Assignment Agreement with the original tenant-Shri. Dattatray Baburao Doiphode on 25 August 1992 for transfer of tenancy rights along with goodwill, stock-in-trade and right to occupy the premises. The Petitioner claims to be put in possession of the premises in pursuance of Assignment Agreement dated 25 August 1992, subject to the eviction proceedings.

4) Bank of Karad Ltd. was merged/ amalgamated with Bank of India pursuant to the amalgamation dated 6 March 1994. According to the Petitioner, though the premises were assigned, there was no attornment of tenancy and Petitioner did not receive any notice of change of landlord from the Bank of India. The Respondent Bank issued notice dated 12 June 2019 under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) seeking possession of the premises on the grounds of occupation by the Petitioner, nonpayment of rent for many years and requirement of the Bank for its own use. Petitioner sent reply dated 16 July 2019 to the notice refuting the alleg