Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Smt. Rukmini Chinaappa Pujari Vs. The Competent Authority for Gr.Mumbai and Anr.
Received on : 29.01.2019
Registered on : 08.02.2019
Decided on : 02.02.2021
Duration : Y M D
2 0 4
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Miscellaneous Appeal No.37 of 2019
(CNR No.MHCC01-001076-2019)
Smt. Rukmini Chinaappa Pujari
Aged about 64 years,
Occ: Housewife, Hindu,
Indian Inhabitant
Residing at Room No.21, Bldg. No.5
Worli Dairy Colony, Kamgar Vasahat
A.G.Khan Road, Worli,
Mumbai- 400 018 ..Appellant
Versus
1. The Competent Authority for
Greater Mumbai, District of Mumbai
Old Custom House, 404, 4th floor,
Fort, Mumbai- 400 001
2. The Manager Worli Dairy Colony,
Mumbai- 400 018 ..Respondents
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
S.B.AGRAWAL
Dated : 2nd February, 2021
(C.R.No.19)
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mr. Bhimrao Powar,
for appellant
Ld. Adv. Mr. M.B.Jadhav
for respondent
Page 1 of 5
2nd February, 2021
-- 1 of 5 --
Smt. Rukmini Chinaappa Pujari Vs. The Competent Authority for Gr.Mumbai and Anr.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
Order passed by the Competent Authority under The Bombay
Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 in Eviction Case No.25647
directing eviction of the appellant from the subject premises namely
Room No. 21, Building No. 5, Ground floor, Worli Dairy Colony, Kamgar
Vasahat, A.G. Khan Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 alongwith order
directing payment of compensation, is assailed in the present appeal.
2. Facts material for disposal of this appeal are as under:-
Son of the appellant Mr. Umesh Chinappa Pujari was working
with Worli Dairy as Government Servant and as such, he was allotted
the subject premises that was convenient for access to work, on
8.7.2014. Son of the appellant died on 27.1.2018 and consequently,
thereafter, since the subject premises were not vacated by the appellant
and the family members, show cause notice was issued and proceedings
for eviction were initiated before the Competent Authority.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that wife
of deceased son of the appellant had also made an application with
Respondent No.2 for compassionate appointment and that without
giving proper opportunity of hearing, the Competent Authority passed
the impugned order directing eviction of the appellant and payment of
compensation of Rs. 1,98, 380/-.
4. Whereas learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the
appellant has no semblance of right in the premises and that upon
considering all the aspects and following principles of natural justice
Page 2 of 5
2nd February, 2021
-- 2 of 5 --
Smt. Rukmini Chinaappa Pujari Vs. The Competent Authority for Gr.Mumbai and Anr.
impugned order is passed.
5. In such circumstances, following points arise for my consideration
and my findings thereon for the reasons therefor are as under:
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the appellant is in unauthorized
occupation of the subject premises?
..In the affirmative
2. Whether the impugned order is just, proper
and legal?
..In the affirmative
3. What order? ..As per final order.
R E A S O N S
Point Nos.1 and 2:
6. It is not disputed position that almost 3 years ago the son of the
appellant who was in employment of respondent No.2, had passed
away. It is also not in dispute that the subject premises were allotted to
the son of the appellant owing to his services with respondent No.2. In
such circumstances, after the employer-employee relationship ended,
the possession of the Government Servant over the Government
Premises or for the matter of his family members for a reasonable
period may be justifiable. However, after passage of that reasonable
period, neither the Government Servant nor his family member can
claim any vested right in the premises and thus there can be no
justification to continue with the possession of a service tenancy
premises on any count.
7. Show cause notice was issued on 20.8.2018 wherein necessary
grounds were given for eviction as well as for compensation/damages
Page 3 of 5
2nd February, 2021
-- 3 of 5 --
Smt. Rukmini Chinaappa Pujari Vs. The Competent Authority for Gr.Mumbai and Anr.
and after granting opportunity of hearing, the order impugned came to
be passed. Thus, it is quite apparent that the possession of the appellant
over the subject premises is unauthorized. As far as compensation is
concerned, it is being calculated on the basis of relevant rules i.e. for
the first three months at the rate of Rs.260/- per month and thereafter
at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. ft. per month and Rs.150/- per sq.ft. per
month. Thus, said amount of compensation has also been quantified in
accordance with law. Considering all the aforesaid circumstances, the
impugned order needs no interference in appeal. Hence, I answer the
points accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
Misc. Appeal No. 37 of 2019 stands dismissed.
2.2.2021 (S.B.AGRAWAL)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 2.2.2021
Transcribed on : 2.2.2021
Signed by HHJ on :2.2.2021
Page 4 of 5
2nd February, 2021
-- 4 of 5 --
Smt. Rukmini Chinaappa Pujari Vs. The Competent Authority for Gr.Mumbai and Anr.
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: B.S. Parab
Upload date and time: 3.2.2021 (at 11.32 a.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri S.B.AGRAWAL(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 2.2.2021
Order signed by P.O. on 2.2.2021
Order uploaded on 3.2.2021
Page 5 of 5
2nd February, 2021
-- 5 of 5 --