Western Coalfields Ltd. and Ors Vs. Ballapur Collieries Company and Ors
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 22.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Civil Revision Application Nos. 801 & 803 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petitions filed by Respondent Nos. 1-8 herein.2. The proceedings in question which are subject matter of these appeals arise out of initiation of eviction proceedings by the Appellants-Government of India Company against the Respondents under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in relation to the suit property.3. By impugned order, the High Court in the revision petitions filed by Respondent Nos. 1-8 herein Under Section 9 of the Act against the order of the District Judge allowed the revision petitions and held that having regard to the nature of controversy and factual issues raised by the parties against each other in the eviction proceedings, the proper remedy of the Appellants would be to file a civil suit against the Respondents for their eviction from the suit properties rather than to take recourse to the summary remedy of eviction under the Act before the Estate Officer.4. The Appellants felt aggrieved by the said order and have filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and the written submissions filed by the Appellants, we are inclined to agree with the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.
1[ds]5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and the written submissions filed by the Appellants, we are inclined to agree with the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.
### Instruction:
Predict whether the case will result in an affirmative (1) or negative (0) decision for the appeal, and then provide a thorough explanation using key sentences to support your prediction.

### Input:
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 22.01.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Civil Revision Application Nos. 801 & 803 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petitions filed by Respondent Nos. 1-8 herein.2. The proceedings in question which are subject matter of these appeals arise out of initiation of eviction proceedings by the Appellants-Government of India Company against the Respondents under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in relation to the suit property.3. By impugned order, the High Court in the revision petitions filed by Respondent Nos. 1-8 herein Under Section 9 of the Act against the order of the District Judge allowed the revision petitions and held that having regard to the nature of controversy and factual issues raised by the parties against each other in the eviction proceedings, the proper remedy of the Appellants would be to file a civil suit against the Respondents for their eviction from the suit properties rather than to take recourse to the summary remedy of eviction under the Act before the Estate Officer.4. The Appellants felt aggrieved by the said order and have filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and the written submissions filed by the Appellants, we are inclined to agree with the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and the written submissions filed by the Appellants, we are inclined to agree with the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.
