JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 18.02.2021 passed by the competent authority of the respondent Corporation under Section 5 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short “the Public Premises Eviction Act”) and the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by 11th Additional District Judge, Surat in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2021 and Misc. Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2021.

2. The petitioners are in occupation of shops situated in shopping complex constructed upon the land bearing nos. 1961/A and 1961/B of Ward No. 2 Rudrapura, Surat, which belongs to Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC).

3. In view of the Metro Rail Project (Phase-I), the SMC needed the said land, on which the shops are situated in larger public interest and hence, the Corporation initiated procedure under the Public Premises Eviction Act. Accordingly, notices were issued on 07.01.2021 under Section 4 of the Public Premises Eviction Act calling upon the petitioners to vacate the premises. They were also personally heard on 18.02.2021. Ultimately, on 18.02.2021, an order under Section 5 of the Public Premises Eviction Act was passed by the competent authority of the respondent-Corporation directing the petitioners to evict the said premises.

4. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 3396 of 2021 before this Court, which came to be withdrawn by the petitioners with a view to avail alternative remedy under the Public Premises Eviction Act and the said petition was disposed of on 25.02.2021. The petitioner had also made representations to the respondent-Corporation. Thereafter, they filed an appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal Nos.8 of 2021 and 11 of 2021 before the District Court, Surat under Section 9 of the Act. After hearing the concerned parties, the District Court authorized the action of the Corporation and rejected the appeal vide order dated 11.08.2021. The petitioners thereafter were also heard with regard to grant of alternative accommodation. Ultimately, since the respondent-Corporation has no policy of granting alternative accommodation, the request was rejected. However, the Gujarat Metro Rail Corporation (GMRC) agreed to offer compensation of Rs. 1,11,000/- per petitioner subject to the verification.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Karathiya appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation as well as the impugned order passed by the District Court is required to be quashed and set aside since the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act will not apply in the present case. It is submitted by him that though the lease deed had expired in the year 2016, all the petitioners were paying rent to the respondent-Corporation and as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short “the T.P. Act”) more particularly Section 116 thereof, such action of the respondents can be termed as extended holding. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhuneshwar Prasad vs. United Commercial Bank, 2000 (7) SCC 232 and also the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.06.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7899 of 2016. Thus, it is submitted by him that the provisions of the T.P. Act, were required to be followed before taking any action against the present petitioners. It is finally asserted by the learned advocate that the petitioners are doing their business since long and if the shops are removed, their livelihood will likely to be affected and hence, an alternative shops or accommodation may be granted to them. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation and the impugned orders may be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya appearing for the respondents has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Di