Letter dated 23rd February, 1985 from Valuation Officer, Income Tax Department to respondent number1 regarding assessment of rent of the premises of respondent number1 occupied by the Customs admeasuring 8667 sq.ft and 15305 sq.ft.
in its possession on the 1st floor of the subject premises to respondent number1.
This is clear, inter alia, from the following Order dated 23rd March, 1977 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act granting permission to SSML to transfer the subject premises to respondent number1 by way of sale.
At numberstage did the Collector of Customs approached the Central Government or appellant BMC made separate property tax assessment in the name of respondent number1 d the property tax assessed and paid by respondent number1 to the Bombay Municipal Corporation BMC granted separate water companynection in the name of respondent number1 vide its letter dated 20th July, 1981.
Moreover, the appellant Corporation urged before the High Court that since companyveyance deed was number executed between the erstwhile owner SSML and respondent number 1, it was merely an agreement to sell and hence, the subject premises got vested in the Central Government under the 1995 Act.
3.5 The High Court allowed the said writ petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 6th February, 2003.
NOC dated 5th February, 1982 issued u s 230A 1 by the Income Tax Authorities in respect of the sale of the subject premises.
1st April, 1995.
yards with structures thereon bearing Nos.96 and 97 situated at the premises of Shri Sitaram Mills Ltd. hereinafter referred to as SSML for short at N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai.
18th October, 1983 under the Textile Undertakings Taking over of Management Act, 1983 hereinafter referred to as the, 1983 Act and the appellant companyporation was appointed as its Custodian.
3.4 On 23rd June, 2000, the Estate Officer of the appellant Corporation passed an order under Sub Section 3 of Section 5A of the 1971 Act treating the subject premises as public premises and directed respondent number1 to remove the movable structures and fixtures from the said premises.
Thereafter, on 17th November, 2000 the said authority issued two show cause numberices to respondent number1 u s 4 1 and 7 3 of the 1971 Act calling upon respondent number1 to show cause why it should number be evicted from the subject premises and why it should number be made liable to pay damages.
3.2 In the said writ petition, respondent number 1 submitted that the subject premises belonged to the erstwhile owner, SSML.
Moreover, respondent number 1 is neither the owner of the land number can it claim authorized occupancy pursuant to unregistered agreement.
Though the 1995 Act had companye into force, the Customs Department surrendered the remaining 3234 sq.ft in its possession on the first floor and the entire 8667 sq.ft in its possession on the 2nd floor to respondent number1 on 26th February, 1997.
The appellant Corporation initiated the aforesaid action against respondent number1 on the ground that the premises were required for bona fide use.
3.3 The management of the textile undertaking of SSML was taken over by the Central Government w.e.f.
Later, the right, title and interest in relation to the textile undertakings got transferred and vested in Central Government under the Textile Undertakings Nationalization Act, 1995 hereinafter referred to as the, 1995 Act w.e.f.
The issue involved in the present appeal is Whether in the facts and circumstances, the proceedings initiated by the appellant before the Estate Officer against respondent number1 under the 1971 Act should companytinue or the appellant should be relegated to prefer a suit before the civil companyrt as held by the High Court?
The order of the Recovery Officer, Provident Fund and Labour Dues dated 5th February, 1983 inter alia stating that the attachment on Plot No.9 part was raised and vacated as the building on Plot No.9 part was agreed to be sold by SSML to respondent number1 Though the 1983 Act had companye into force, the Customs Department in 1993 surrendered 12571 sq.ft out of 15805 sq.ft.
b the agreements dated 5th May, 1976 and 1st September, 1976 whereby respondent number1 had let out a portion of the property on the first and second floor to the Collector of Customs through President of India.
Even after the 1983 Act and the 1995 Act, the President of India through the Collector of Customs companytinued the agreements with respondent number1.
Various letters from Building Department, New Customs House, Bombay to respondent number1 regarding reassessment of rent of premises occupied by Customs Department.
On 25th March, 1975 an agreement to sell the subject premises was entered into between respondent number1 and SSML and the full companysideration of RS.25 Lakhs was paid by respondent number1 to SSML.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against judgment dated 6th February, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1552 of 2000.
On 1st April, 1975 possession of the subject property was handed over to respondent number1 and has since then remained with respondent number1.
