Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 Misc.Appeal 72.18
Received on : 05/03/2018
Registered on : 05/03/2018
Decided on : 29/10/2018
Duration : Y M D
0 7 24
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Misc.Appeal No.72 of 2018
Kailash Laxman Sarode
aged 59 years
Occ.Retired Accounts Clerk,
residing at Worli Dugdhashala
Hill Road, Worli,
Mumbai18 ..Appellant
V/s.
1) The Competent Authority
Gr.Mumbai, having office at
404, 4th floor, New D.D.
Building, Old Custom House,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Fort, Mumbai1
2) The Dairy Manager,
Worli Dairy, having
its office at A. G. Khan
Marg, Worli Sea Face,
Mumbai18
3) The Commissioner,
Dairy Department,
New Administrative Building,
Worli Dairy, Worli,
Mumbai18
4) The Secretary
Dairy Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
5) The State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai ..Respondents
-- 1 of 6 --
2 Misc.Appeal 72.18
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V. GANEDIWALA
Dated : 29th October, 2018
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Ms.Anupriya Nalawade for appellant.
Advocate Mr.M. B. Jadhav for respondents.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
Order of eviction and payment of arrears of rent of
Rs.1,29,000/ dated 3 rd February, 2018 passed by the Competent
Authority under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') in respect of premises i.e. room
no.C1, Pariveshak Nivasthan, Worli Dugdhashala, Hill Road, Worli,
Mumbai18 (hereinafter referred to as the 'inquiry premises') is assailed
in the present appeal.
2 The facts, necessary to decide the present appeal are as
under :
The appellant is the exemployee of respondent no.2. The inquiry
premises was allotted to the appellant being the employee of the
respondent no.2. The appellant joined the services of respondent no.2
on 22nd February, 1979. The inquiry premises was allotted to him on
20th November, 2014. Initially, the appellant was allotted the premises
No.14/196 by office order dated 02nd August, 2006. The appellant
retired from services of the Corporation on 30th June, 2017. He did not
vacate his staff quarter in spite of his retirement. Quit notice dated 18th
September, 2017 was issued against the appellant. In spite of the
receipt of the quit notice, the appellant did not vacate the inquiry
premises. Eviction proceeding was initiated against the appellant
-- 2 of 6 --
3 Misc.Appeal 72.18
before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority in its turn,
being satisfied about unauthorised retention of the staff quarter by the
exemployee issued a statutory show cause notice dated 7 th November,
2017 under Section 4(2) of the said Act and thereby called upon the
appellant to show as to why he should not be evicted. He was also
called upon to pay Rs.44,740/ for the use and occupation of the inquiry
premises from the period 01st October, 2017 to 31st December, 2017
under Section 5(2) of the said Act.
3 On the basis of the material on record, the Competent
Authority passed an order of eviction dated 3rd February, 2018 and also
arrears of payment of rent of Rs.1,29,000/. The impugned order is
challenged in this appeal.
4 I have heard ld.counsels Ms.Nalawade for the appellant
and Mr.Jadhav for the respondents.
5 The following points arise for my consideration and my
findings thereon for the reasons stated therefor are as under:
POINTS FINDINGS
1) Whether the appellant is in
unauthorized occupation of ..In the affirmative
the inquiry premises?
2) Whether the order passed
by the Inquiry Officer is legal, ..In the affirmative
proper and correct?
3) What order? ..As per final order
-- 3 of 6 --
4 Misc.Appeal 72.18
R E A S O N S
As to point nos.1 and 2:
6 At the outset, the appellant could not show any reason as
to under what authority, on his retirement, he is entitled to retain the
possession of the staff quarter. It is one of the contentions of the
ld.counsel on behalf of the appellant that his gratuity amount was
withheld after his retirement. The ld.counsel relied upon the order
passed by this court in Misc.Appeal No.104 of 2017 and Misc.Appeal
No.177 of 2017 and submitted that in the aforesaid orders, this court
condoned the payment of arrears of rent and the penal rent in respect
of the appellants in those appeals. The learned counsel for the
respondent supported the impugned order.
7 I have considered the submissions on behalf of both the
parties. At the outset, the case in hand is not similarly situated with the
cases this court has decided in the above referred appeals. In the case
of Smt. Sunita Surendra Shinde, the wife of Surendra Nivrutti Shinde
(in Misc. Appeal No.177/17) the exemployee, was asked to pay the
arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.6,20,780/. Her husband late Surendra
Shinde was on the post of watchman. The case of the appellant herein
is not similarly situated. As per information tendered by the ld.counsel
Mr.Jadhav for respondent, as on today amount of Rs.17,56,218/,
Rs.59,544/, Rs.4,27,110/ and Rs.1,29,967 under various heads like
Provident Fund, Group Insurance Scheme, etc. has already paid to the
appellant. As per notification dated 09th April, 2018 issued by the GID
Department, the appellant is liable to pay the rent for unauthorized
occupation and penal rent as is applicable to the all the Government
-- 4 of 6 --
5 Misc.Appeal 72.18
servants.
8 I do not find any merit in this appeal. The order of inquiry
officer does not appear to be perverse. No interference is called for.
Hence, I pass the following order:
O R D E R
1) Misc.Appeal No.72/18 stands dismissed with costs.
2) R & P be sent back.
29/10 /2018 (P.V. GANEDIWALA)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 29/10/2018
Transcribed on : 29/10/2018
Signed by HHJ on :
-- 5 of 6 --
6 Misc.Appeal 72.18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: Mrs.Aruna S. Jayade
Upload date and time: 03/11/2018 (At 06.26 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Mrs.P.V.GANEDIWALA(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 29th October, 2018
Order signed by P.O. on 03rd November, 2018
Order uploaded on 03rd November, 2018
-- 6 of 6 --