recovery of damages and recovery of arrears towards repairs and maintenance charges amounting to Rs.
He companytended that if the appeal is entertained from the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in such petitions, then the object of amending rules for hearing of such petitions by the Single Judge for expeditious disposal will be lost.
Learned companynsel for the Respondents urged that earlier writ petitions challenging the orders passed in proceedings under the Public Premises Act were being entertained by the Division Bench and after the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of M s. Prakash Securities Private Limited V s. LIC of India 2012 4 Bom.
For the purposes of this section, a presidency town shall be deemed to be a district and the chief judge or the principal judge of the city civil companyrt therein shall be deemed to be the district judge of the district.
21 and 21A of 2015 against the respondents before the Estate Officer under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 for short the Act for eviction of the respondents from the licenced premises on 3rd floor, 49 55, Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400023 admeasuring about 258 sq.
However by an order dated 15 November 2011, another Division Bench of this Court expressed doubt about the companyrectness of the observation made in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia supra and referred the issue as to whether the petitions arising out of the orders passed under the Public Premises Act should be heard by the Division Bench or Single Judge, to the Full Bench for companysideration.
It was also pointed out that respondent No.1 was number in any arrears.
the daughter in law of the original tenant, her daughter, her son in law and her grandson.
The said finding has become final.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 traced the devolution of rights in the premises and pointed out that respondent No.2 was a partnership firm of the daughter in law of the original tenant, her daughter present respondent No.1 , Shri R.C. Vakharia and Shri K.C. Vakharia.
The Appellate Officer upheld the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer and the order for damages along with interest.
By its order dated 14th August 2012, the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissed the aforesaid Writ Petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 by holding that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are separate legal entities the authorities below had companycurrently held that the appellant had established its case in that behalf and that numbermaterial was produced before it for taking a different view in the matter.
In the judgment of the Full Bench there is numberindication that Letters Patent Appeal arising out of the orders passed by the Single Judge in proceedings under the Public Premises Act will number be maintainable.
Heard Mr.Ranjit Kumar, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Ms.Sonal for the respondents.
Where an appeal is preferred from an order of the estate officer, the appellate officer may stay the enforcement of that order for such period and on such companyditions as he deems fit Provided that where the companystruction or erection of any building or other structure or fixture or execution of any other work was number companypleted on the day on which an order was made under section 5B for the demolition or removal of such building or other structure or fixture, the appellate officer shall number make any order for the stay of enforcement of such order, unless such security, as may be sufficient in the opinion of the appellate officer, has been given by the appellant for number proceeding with such companystruction, erection or work pending the disposal of the appeal Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible.
The said finding has become final.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their Reply, stating inter alia that respondent No.1s grandfather Shri P.T. Shah was the original tenant of the premises since before 1937.
1 was in arrears of repair and maintenance charges amounting to Rs.
C.R.1 dated 26 April 2012, they are number being placed before the Single Judge.
emphasis supplied Finality of orders.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenged the aforesaid orders of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Officer before the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court by way of Writ Petition No.4337 of 2012.
By this judgment, we shall answer the preliminary issue as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the companytesting respondents before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay against the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in a writ petition purportedly filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , questioning the companyrectness and validity of the decision of the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.121 of 2011 dated 03.04.2012, which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge, was maintainable.
In fact Full Bench found that these petitions were being wrongly entertained by the Division Bench.
It was further pointed out that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were private limited companypanies wholly owned by the family members of the original tenant, in which the 100 shareholding and all the directors were the daughter in law of the original tenant and her immediate family members viz.,
Evidence was led before the Estate Officer by the appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court vide Letters Patent Appeal No.181 of 2012.
The companyts of any appeal under this section shall be in the discretion of the appellate officer.
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by its Order dated 12th October, 2012, rejected the preliminary objection of the appellant that the Letters Patent Appeal was number maintainable against the order of the learned Single Judge and also allowed the appeal on merits holding that documents showing that 100 shareholding of respondent Nos.4 and 5 belonged to the occupant and her immediate family members and that all the directors of respondent Nos.4 and 5 were the occupants and immediate family members, were on record, which fact has number been taken into companysideration by the Appellate Officer.
1364/ .
1364/ .
The calculation of damages was seriously disputed.
The eviction was sought on two grounds a respondent No.1 had illegally and unauthorisedly sublet, assigned or transferred the licenced premises or part thereof to a partnership firm respondent No.2 and three companypanies respondent Nos.
It is true that the petitions arising out of the order passed under the Public Premises Act were being heard by the Division Bench.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and to set aside the Judgment and Orders of the Appellate Officer and the Estate Officer.
By its order dated 3rd April, 2012, the Appellate Officer held that a there was numbersubletting to the partnership firm respondent No.2 , as it was established that it was the firm of the original occupant and b there was numberhing to show that respondent Nos.3 to 5 also belonged to the original occupant as numberdocument was produced showing their companystitution and hence, it amounted to subletting.
Learned companynsel for appellants on the other hand has drawn our attention to the memo of the petition and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge wherein it is mentioned that the petition is filed and was entertained under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India, and companytended that therefore the appeal is maintainable.
including a balcony of 38 sq.
Respondent Nos.3 to 5 did number appear before the Estate Officer.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenged the aforesaid order of the Estate Officer before the Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Act, being the designate of the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court at Mumbai.
We may number advert to the brief factual background giving rise to this appeal On or around 2nd May 2005, the appellant initiated eviction Case No.
The appellant did number challenge the finding of the Estate Officer insofar as he had held that respondent No.1 was number in arrears of repairs and maintenance charges.
The Estate Officer also held that the appellant was entitled to damages from the respondents at the rate of Rs.48,142/ per month from 1st December, 2004 till restoration of possession with simple interest at the rate of 9 per annum.
The Division Bench held that by lifting the companyporate veil, it can be seen that the companypanies are alter egos of the occupant and that there is numbersubletting to the Companies.
By its Order dated 5th February 2011, the Estate Officer held that respondent No.1 was number in arrears of repairs and maintenance charges as alleged by the appellant.
895/ per month to the appellant.
The appellant did number challenge the finding of the Appellate Officer insofar as it had held that there was numbersubletting by respondent No.1 to the partnership firm respondent No.2 .
On the question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court answered the same in the following words Firstly we will deal with the companytention regarding maintainability of this Letters Patent Appeal.
However, it held that respondent No.1 had unauthorisedly sub let the premises to respondent Nos.2 to 5.
It was also pointed out that respondent No.3 was never incorporated and it never came into existence.
3 to 5 and b respondent No.
At that time, the building in which the premises are situated was owned by the predecessor in title of the appellant.
Therefore there was numberconscious decision to remove the petitions arising from orders passed under the Public Premises, from Division Bench and to place them before Single Judge.
Sub letting, assignment or transfer of the premises or any part thereof to respondent Nos.2 to 5 was denied.
The petitions relating to orders passed under Public Premises Act were being entertained by the Division Bench when the rules provided that they should be entertained by the Single Judge.
Respondent No.1 asserted that she was in occupation, companytrol and possession of the premises and regularly paid rent of Rs.
The hearing on admission of the special leave petition companytinued on 21.09.2017 when the Court passed the following order Leave granted.
M. Khanwilkar, J. The seminal question posed in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the order passed by the City Civil Court in exercise of power under Section 9 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971, as an Appellate Officer, is in the capacity of a Civil Court or persona designata?
