BHARATI SHIVAJI Vs. UNION OF INDIAAND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions assail proceedings initiated by the respondents under Sec. 3B of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 [the Act]. The petitions as originally framed challenged show cause notices dtd. 5/8/2021 pursuant to which proceedings under Sec. 3B of the Act were commenced. By way of C.M No. 5586/2022 filed in the lead petition [W.P.(C) 9346/2021], the petitioners also brought on record final orders dtd. 21/1/2022 in terms of which orders for eviction came to be framed against the them. In light of the final orders which were passed and since the Court was already seized of these petitions, on 4/2/2022 the Court passed interim orders restraining the eviction of the petitioners here. The interim protection was thereafter extended to remain in operation till the final disposal of these writ petitions.

(2.) All the petitioners are artists of repute and masters in their own right in varied fields of the Indian classical arts. Amongst them are dancers, musicians, exponents of instruments such as the sitar, santoor to name just a few. These artistes of national and international repute have amongst them many who have been conferred the highest civilian honours of the country and have become legends in their lifetime. In recognition of their standing of eminence and the invaluable contribution made by them for the propagation and preservation of classical art forms, they were allotted the premises in question under a discretionary quota by the respondents. The allotments were made on a leave and license basis as per the particulars which are placed below: -

(3.) As the details extracted hereinabove would establish, the petitioners have continued to remain in occupation of the premises even after the initial term of allotment expired decades ago. It is the admitted position that although no formal orders pertaining to the retention of these premises were made by the respondents for a long period of time, they were permitted to retain the same. It is also relevant to note that all the petitioners occupied these premises pursuant to allotments specifically made in their favour. The solitary exception to the above is the petitioner No. 6 in W.P.(C) 11220/2021 who is admittedly not an original allottee. He has continued to occupy the premises which were licensed in favour of his illustrious father the late Ustad Sabri Khan. The said petitioner has continued to retain possession even after the demise of the original allottee. The petitioners challenge the initiation of action by the respondents by contending that the premises had been licensed to them in terms of the policies as existing and considering the invaluable contribution made by them in the perpetuation of classical Indian art forms. It was submitted that the petitioners had been accorded allotment of these premises by the Union in recognition of their work and contribution to preserve traditional art forms.