AJIT Vs. GENERAL MANAGER BEST UNDERTAKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT :- A short but important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether before ordering eviction of a allottee of the Municipal premises under sub-sec.(1) of S.105B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act it is incumbent on the Municipal Commissioner to issue a notice in writing to all persons residing with the said allottee.

(2.) The appellants are sons and daughters of Respondent 3, who being an employee of the 1st Respondent Undertaking was allotted Flat No. N/25 from the BEST staff quarters at Parel, Bombay. Respondent 3 was made to retire from service with effect from 8th February 1983 and he was served with a show cause notice by respondent 2 calling upon him to vacate the premises allotted to him, on the ground that after his services were terminated, his occupation of the said premises became unauthorised. This notice was issued by respondent 2 as the Competent Authority to whom the General Manager of the BEST Undertaking delegated the powers conferred on him by S.105A read with S.105B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. In furtherance to the said notice and in exercise of the powers delegated to him respondent 2 passed the order of eviction on 22nd April 1983 evicting respondent 3 along with all other persons in occupation of the said premises. Being aggrieved by this order respondent 3 preferred an appeal under S.105F of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. But this appeal was disposed of with a direction that the eviction order was not to be executed till 31-10-83, respondent 3, having given a written undertaking that he would vacate the premises by that date. Thereafter respondent 3 asked for extension of time to vacate on the ground that the marriage of appellant 2 was to be celebrated on 19th November 1983. But the request was turned down and hence the appellants filed Suit No. 6292 of 1983 for challenging the above referred order of eviction and restraining respondents 1 and 2 from taking possession of the premises in question in pursuance to the aforesaid order of eviction. They also took out Notice of Motion No. 562 of 1983 for interim injunction for restraining respondents 1 and 2, their servants, agents, employees and officers from executing the order dated 22-4-1983 passed in Case No. CWD/ STK(SN)/ 23861/ 83 and from evicting the appellants from the suit premises. An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted as prayed. But the motion came to be dismissed on merits, the learned trial Judge holding that no notice to the appellants was necessary before passing the order of eviction against respondent 3 and hence this appeal.

(3.) The appeal was admitted and was posted for early hearing as prayer for interim injunction was strenuously opposed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and as there was no dispute about facts.