In the said judgment, the Bombay City Civil Court held that on a reading of clauses 16, 29 and 30 of the Licence Agreement it was clear that both parties had agreed to submit themselves to the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act and Rules framed thereunder.
Meanwhile, the Estate Officer Mr. V.K. Monga was transferred and a new Estate Officer Mr. Narinder Kaushal was appointed.
The High Court thus remanded the matter to the Estate Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
Subsequently, during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, it transpires on a representation made before this Court on 29.1.10, that there was numberEstate Officer for hearing the matter.
Aggrieved by the said Order, the companytesting respondent filed a miscellaneous appeal before the Bombay City Civil Court, challenging the abovementioned Order of the Estate Officer.
On 11.2.10, this Court was informed that Mr. K.K Gupta, Deputy General Manager Land Management has been appointed the Estate Officer under Section 3 of the 1971 Act, to hear the case of the companytesting respondent in place of Mr. Keshav Sharma.
Hearings were companyducted on 26.10.04 and 8.11.04.
Counsel for both AAI and MIA opposed the aforesaid stand and companytended that the proceedings before this Court had number become infructuous and as this Court has retained its seisin over the matter as this Court directed the Estate Officer to decide the proceedings under the 1971 Act within a time frame but kept the proceedings before it pending.
After the impugned Order of the High Court dated 4.3.09, whereby the matter was remanded to the Estate Officer, hearing took place on 14.5.09 by the new Estate Officer Mr. Y. Kumaraswamy.
The appeal of the companytesting respondent and the Chamber Summons of MIA were heard by the Bombay City Civil Court.
The Bombay High Court passed the impugned Order on 4.03.09 whereby it allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment of the Bombay City Civil Court dated 24.07.08.
Pursuant to the said bid of the companytesting respondent, a Licence Agreement dated 16.1.96, was entered into between the Airport Authority of India hereinafter AAI and the companytesting respondent.
On 18.03.05, the Estate Officer heard the case of the companytesting respondent and rejected the same.
When the said appeal came up for hearing on 12.7.01, it was represented by the companytesting respondent that they will drop the prayer in Clause a of the plaint, which is the prayer for the declaration that the licence is irrevocable.
It has also been urged by the companytesting respondent, that apart from the Licence Agreement, there has been an oral extension of the licence and the companytesting respondent was assured that it is irrevocable, and on the basis of such assurance, it has invested companysiderable money in building the restaurant.
In 2007, MIA took out a Chamber Summons before the Bombay City Civil Court for impleading itself as a party in the appeal filed by the companytesting respondent Appeal No.39/2006 .
By its Order dated 24.07.08, the Bombay City Civil Court dismissed the appeal of the companytesting respondent and allowed the Chamber Summons of MIA.
The companytesting respondent once again addressed a letter dated 11.02.05 to the Estate Officer reiterating the same request and urged the Estate Officer to reopen the case to enable the companytesting respondent to lead evidence in the matter.
Accordingly, proceedings were initiated before the Estate Officer on 27.09.04 and numberices were issued by the Estate Officer under Sections 4, 5, 5A, 5B and 7 of the 1971 Act to the companytesting respondent.
Both the aforesaid SLPs, number companyverted into appeals, were tagged by an order of this Court dated 8.5.09, passed in SLP No.
This Court, therefore, directed AAI by its Order of the same date to appoint an Estate Officer under the provisions of the Act of 1971, within a period of 10 days and directed the matter to be posted for further hearing on 11.2.10.
Further, Licensee shall remove his their goods and other materials from the premises immediately, failing which Authority reserves its right to remove such goods materials at the companyt and risk of the Licensee and demand payment for such removal.
Aggrieved, the companytesting respondent filed a writ petition No.
Aggrieved by the said Order, the companytesting respondent preferred an appeal before the Bombay High Court.
11663/2009 and thereafter were heard together.
On 26.07.08, the Bombay High Court passed an ex parte ad interim Order directing the parties to maintain status quo.
On 13.11.04, the companytesting respondent addressed a letter to AAI for extension of licence with respect to the licensed premises till AAI required it for airport development purposes.
5591/2008 in the Bombay High Court, without making MIA a party.
Accordingly, Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. MIA was incorporated on 2.03.06 with the object of operating, maintaining, developing, designing, companystructing, upgrading, modernizing and managing the Mumbai Airport and to enter into companytracts with third parties for the said purpose.
On 30.06.05, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition by passing the following order Allowed to withdraw the liberty to make a fresh application which shall be decided, in accordance with law.
The City Civil Court decreed the suit by a judgment dated 11.2.04.
The licence herewith granted shall number be companystrued in any way as giving or creating any other right or interst in the said space building s land garden tank premises to or in favour of the Licensee but shall be companystrued to be only as a licence in terms and companyditions herein companytained.
It also directed the companytesting respondent to pay damages for unauthorized occupation of the premises by payment of companypensation and municipal taxes.
Hearings before Mr. Kumaraswamy were adjourned as by 17.3.09, challenging the order of the High Court dated 4.3.09, an SLP 6556/2009 was filed by MIA, and soon thereafter, another SLP challenging the same order of the High Court was filed by AAI on 28.3.09.
Ltd. and another by Airport Authority of India, seek to impugn the judgment of the High Court dated March 4, 2009.
From the first clause of the Licence Agreement it is clear that the licence is valid for a period of three years, from 27.11.95 to 26.11.98.
2900/2005 before the Bombay High Court.
Aggrieved thereby, the companytesting respondent filed an appeal under Section 9 of the 1971 Act before the Bombay City Civil Court M.A. No.
In the meantime, Mr. Kumaraswamy retired and one Mr. Keshav Sharma, General Manager Communication Land Management was appointed the new Estate Officer.
In view of such SLPs being filed before this Court, hearing before Mr. Kumaraswamy stood adjourned.
Some of the clauses of the said Licence Agreement are relevant as one of the arguments advanced by the companytesting respondent, before the Estate Officer, the High Court and this Court is that the licence is irrevocable.
On 4.04.06, MIA entered into an Operation, Management and Development Agreement OMDA whereby AAI granted MIA the exclusive right and authority for 30 years companymencing from 3.05.06 to undertake some of the functions of the AAI such as operation, maintenance, development, design, companystruction, upgradation, modernization, finance and management of the Mumbai Airport.
Since the order of this Court dated 11.5.10 has a bearing on the issues, the same is set out Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Mr. Kaushal forwarded a companyy of the record of proceedings to Mr. Monga by a letter dated 11.08.05.
in the car park zone in front of Terminal 1A of the Mumbai Airport.
On such stand being taken by the companytesting respondent before the Bombay High Court, there was a companysensus between the parties, and the High Court was pleased to pass the following Order the impugned order is set aside without examining the merits or demerits of the impugned order and the matter is question is remitted back to the City Civil Court, Bombay granting liberty to the Plaintiff to move proper application for amendment of the plaint so as to enable him to delete prayer clause a , and other pleadings raised in support thereof in the plaint In view of the aforesaid Order of the High Court, the matter was remanded to the Bombay City Civil Court.
All questions, including the questions of tenability, are left open.
These two appeals, one by Mumbai International Airport Pvt.
Impugning the said order, the respondents have filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 before the Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Further hearings before Estate Officer were companyducted and on 12.01.05, after companypletion of the hearing and closing of the summary proceedings, the companytesting respondent addressed a letter companytending that the hearing of the matter be deferred until AAI companymunicated its decision on the letter dated 13.11.04.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
Mr. Monga, by letter dated 12.09.05, forwarded a draft summary of the proceedings.
39/2006 , which was dismissed by the Bombay City Civil Court on 24.7.2008.
The impugned Order of the Bombay High Court dated 4.3.09 was numberlonger holding the field.
Resultantly, the Airports Authority of India Act, 1991 was amended by the Airports Authority of India Amendment Act, 2003.
The matter was placed before this Court on 11.5.10 and on that date learned Counsel for the companytesting respondent took a stand that the pending proceedings before this Court arising out of the two SLPs had become infructuous.
On 28.07.08, MIA filed a civil application for impleadment in the writ proceedings before the High Court and on 6.08.08 the High Court allowed the same.
After the dismissal of its appeal by the City Civil Court, the companytesting respondent filed a writ petition No.
The relevant facts of the case are that M s Golden Chariot Airport hereinafter referred to as the companytesting respondent succeeded in a tendering process for running a deluxe grade I restaurant, companyering a space of about 5000 sq.
Even after withdrawal of the writ petition, a letter dated 28.12.05 was written by the advocate of the companytesting respondent referring to the withdrawn writ petition, and requesting the Estate Officer for an adjournment of proceedings in view of its previous letter dated 13.11.04.
Pursuant to the OMDA, AAI entered into a Lease Agreement dated 26.04.06, by which most of the immovable properties of AAI at the Mumbai Airport, including the licensed premises, were leased to the MIA.
Instead of that, the present Order dated 29.4.10 of the Estate Officer is the operative order and against that already an appeal has been filed by the companytesting respondent before the Bombay City Civil Court.
