Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6808
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, J
RAIAN NOGI KARANJAWALA – Appellant
Versus
THE BOARD OF MUMBAI PORT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WPL/12916/2024
Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas and Mr.Akshay Ayush i/b. Bharucha & Partners for Petitioners. Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shanay Shah and Mr. Kundanlal Patil i/b. Vyas and Bhalwal for Respondent No.1. Ms. Astha Tahmankar a/w. Ms. Dhanashree Ranadive and Mr. Omkar A. Dandekar i/b. M/s. Chitnis & Co. for Respondent Nos.5 and 13 to 16. Mr. Aurup Dasgupta a/w. Ms. Sonam Ghiya and Ms. Drshika Hemnani i/b. Jhangiani, Narula and Associates for Respondent Nos.9 and 10.
The court ruled that the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition, rejecting the petitioners' claims of protection under rent control laws due to the classification of the premises as 'public premises'.
Headnote:(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Jurisdiction of Estate Officer to entertain eviction petitions - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - The court examined whether the Estate Officer had jurisdiction over an eviction petition filed by a local authority against the petitioners who claimed protection under rent control legislation. The court noted that the petitioners' predecessor had a lease predating the inclusion of the premises in the definition of 'public premises' under the Public Premises Act, and thus the eviction proceedings were maintainable. (Paras 1-26)
(B) Jurisdictional Issues - The court emphasized that if the petitioners were entitled to protection under the rent control acts, the eviction proceedings would be invalid. The court ultimately ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to such protection. (Paras 8, 12, 19, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed that they were protected under the rent control laws due to a lease granted in 1962, while the eviction petition was filed by the Mumbai Port Authority in 2013. The Estate Officer ruled in favor of the authority, prompting the petitioners to challenge this in court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition and that the petitioners were not entitled to the protections under the rent control legislation.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition against the petitioners, considering their claim of protection under rent control laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the protections under the rent control acts did not apply to the petitioners as the premises were classified as 'public premises' under the Public Premises Act, thus affirming the Estate Officer's jurisdiction.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
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. On29.05.2015, 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 enjoyed the protection o
