The appellant was originally a privately owned Company situated at Akola Maharashtra .
It was engaged in the business of manufacture of companyton.
The challenge to the numberices was essentially on the ground that when the public premises in question is situated at Akola then the proceedings in relation to such public premises has to be held only at Akola rather than at Mumbai where numberpart of the cause of action had arisen.
By impugned order, the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal, which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the appellantMills in this Court.
It was held that the appellant would be free to initiate the proceedings under the Act in relation to public premises in question at Akola.
The Single Judge of the High Court accepted the ground raised by the respondents herein writ petitioners and by his order dated 25.11.2003 allowed the writ petition, in companysequence, quashed the impugned numberices.
He was, however, asked to attend the proceedings, pursuant to the numberices, at Mumbai.
Respondent No.1s predecessor felt aggrieved by the issuance of the numberices, particularly, that part of the numberices, which had directed him to attend the proceedings at Mumbai, and filed a writ petition in High Court of Bombay at Nagpur questioning the legality and validity of the numberices.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal finding numbermerit therein.
The appellant felt aggrieved and filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.
In our companysidered opinion, the Division Bench in the impugned order rightly upheld the view taken by the Single Judge calling for numberinterference in this appeal.
On 25.06.1993 and 04.04.2003, the Estate Officer of the appellant issued the numberices under Sections 4 and 7 3 of the Act to respondent No.1s predecessor, who was alleged to be in an unauthorized occupation of the appellants premises, and called upon him to vacate the premises specified in the numberices.
Since the appellant became the Government of India Undertaking, the provisions of Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act became applicable to the appellants Mills.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.751 OF 2008 Signature Not Verified This appeal is filed against the final judgment Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2018.08.20 164102 IST Reason and order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in L.P.A. No.46 of 2004 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 25.11.2003 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1795 of 2003 by which the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein was allowed and the order passed by the Estate Officer of the National Textile Corporation Ltd. respondent No.2 herein was set aside.
This Mill was later taken over by the National Textile Corporation Maharashtra Ltd., which is a subsidiary of NTCa Government of India Undertaking.
