JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia for the following relief:

"9b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the order dated 06.05.2017 passed in Case No.1/2006 dated 03.05.2008 and confirmed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.69/2008 are erroneous, illegal, contrary to facts and law and without application of mind and void and therefore the same may be quashed and set-aside and be further pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner is a deemed tenant of the property in question."

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :

2.1 On 10.07.1971, one Ismailbhai Chandbhai Radhanpuri entered into a Tenancy Agreement with the respondent-Dholka Nagarpalika for the property bearing Tikka No.2C, Survey No.319, admeasuring 1750 sq.ft. situated on the Western side of Bank of Baroda, Dholka Branch, Dholka. The shop is known as Virat Saw Mill. On 20.01.1977, the tenant-father of the petitioner was served with a notice for eviction under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short "the Eviction Act"), which was challenged before Civil Judge, Dholka seeking permanent injunction against the eviction by the respondent. Vide a decree dated 29.11.1980, Civil Judge, Dholka concluded that the possession of the premises may not be taken from the tenant without following due procedure of law. On 01.08.1997, the respondent again issued a notice for eviction to the petitioner, to which he gave a detailed reply on 27.08.1997. Thereafter, the same had culminated into Jamin Appeal No.3 of 2005 before the Deputy Collector, Dholka and vide order dated 15.09.2005, the said appeal was dismissed clarifying that the respondent shall issue notice in the prescribed format. Thereafter, the respondent preferred Case No.1 of 2006 before the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate seeking eviction of the petitioner under Section 5 of the Eviction Act. After hearing the parties, the authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the property in question as he is an adopted son of Hawaben, who is the legal heir of tenant-Ismail Chandbhai Radhanpuri and as per the Mohammedan Law, adoption is not permissible as well as on other grounds also, Case No.1 of 2006 filed by the respondent was allowed vide order dated 03.05.2008.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Bhamare appearing for the petitioner has submitted that father of the petitioner had instituted Civil Suit No.66 of 1977 before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dholka and by the judgement and order dated 29.11.1980, the respondent was declared not to take possession of the property in question without following due procedure of law and hence, the petitioner, who is the adopted son of Ismailbhai Chandbhai Radhanpuri, can be said to be a "protected tenant" and hence, he could not have been evicted by resorting to the provision of the Eviction Act. He has placed reliance on the definition of 'tenant' as stipulated under Section 5(11)(c)(2) of the Gujarat Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "the Rent Act") and has submitted that since he is the protected tenant, the provision of the Eviction Act cannot be resorted. It is submitted that the respondent authority should have instituted a civil suit under the provision of the Rent Act for getting him evicted.

3.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Bhamare has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Suhas H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its Estate Officer, (2014) 4 S.C.C. 657 and has submitted that the Eviction Act came into force in the year 1972 and such provision could not have been invoked since the case of the petitioner would be governed by the Rent Act. He has submitted that as per the observations of the Apex Court, the Eviction Act will apply only in those cases, who have occupied the properties after such date and since, in the present case, father of the p