Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
Miscellaneous Application (Delay) No.30 of 2020
Mrs. Samubai J. Valodra
W/o Late Mr. J.R.Valdodra
Age-81 years, Occupation: Housewife,
Residing at 13, Type-A, Buildg. No.16
Air India 1st Housing Colony, Kalina,
Santacruz(E), Mumbai- 400 029 ..Applicant
Versus
1. The Estate Officer for Air India
Under the Public Premises
(Eviction of unauthorized occupants)Act,
C/o Welfare Section, Personal Department,
THQ Building, 2nd floor, Old Airport,
Santacruz(E), Mumbai- 400 029
2. Air India Limited
HRD Department, Old Airport,
Santacruz(E),
Mumbai- 400 029 ..Respondents
CORAM: H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
S. B. AGRAWAL
DATED: 12th January, 2021
(C.R.No.19)
Adv. Sachin Chandan,
for applicant.
Adv. Deepika Agrawal a/w Adv. Lancy D’souza,
for respondents.
ORAL ORDER
Delay of 8725 days caused in preferring appeal under the Public
Premises Act is sought to be condoned by way of present application.
-- 1 of 4 --
Samubai J. Valodra Vs. The Estate Officer & Anr.
2. At the outset, it would be appropriate to mention that the
husband of the applicant was the employee of Respondent No.2 Air
India Ltd. He retired from his service prior to 1996. However, since he
did not vacate the premises for which service tenancy was granted,
proceedings under the Public Premises Act were initiated and the Estate
Officer passed order of eviction on 25.3.1996.
3. Said order is sought to be challenged by way of an appeal. It is
contended that the applicant did not have necessary means to file the
appeal and applicant and her husband had approached Respondent
No.2 Air India Ltd. to look into the matter. His retirement dues were
also not cleared and several representations were also made by the
husband of the applicant which were not paid any heed to.
4. It is contended that alternate premises was sought to be acquired
by the applicant and her husband at Mira Road for Rs.6 Lakhs and an
amount of Rs.4 Lakhs was paid. But, since the remainder amount of
Rs.2 Lakhs was not paid because Respondent No.2 has not cleared the
dues, the transaction failed through and it is in these circumstances that
the appeal was filed belatedly.
5. Respondents have filed reply taking the exception to each one of
the contentions. However, infact it is not necessary to go into the
averments of the reply since even accepting the contentions in the
application as it is, no sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 8725
days is made out. It is not the case of the applicant that applicant or her
husband were not aware about the said order. Moreover, considering
2 of 4
12th January, 2021
-- 2 of 4 --
Samubai J. Valodra Vs. The Estate Officer & Anr.
the nature of possession and the terms of allotment of subject premises,
it cannot be said that applicant has any semblance of right to continue
in the subject premises. Vague averments are made in the application
that are wholly insufficient to condone such a long period of delay.
Considering the aforesaid aspects, I pass the following order:-
O R D E R
Misc. Application (Delay) No. 30 of 2020 stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S. B. AGRAWAL)
12.1.2021 PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 12.01.2021
Transcribed on : 12.01.2021
Signed by HHJ on : 12.01.2021
3 of 4
12th January, 2021
-- 3 of 4 --
Samubai J. Valodra Vs. The Estate Officer & Anr.
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: Mrs.B.S. Parab
Upload date and time: 12.1.2021 (At 4.45 pm)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri S.B.AGRAWAL(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 12.1.2021
Order signed by P.O. on 12.1.2021
Order uploaded on 12.1.2021
4 of 4
12th January, 2021
-- 4 of 4 --