MARUTI TUKARAM PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mrs. Gokhale, learned AGP waive service. The matter is heard for final disposal and shall be disposed of by the following Judgment and Order.

(2.) THE Petitioner is running a Canteen in the Office premises of the Executive Engineer at Kolhapur. He is there in the premises since about 1979-80, under an Agreement executed by him with the Executive Engineer. THE Agreements were renewed from time to time for some years. THEreafter, on November 6, 1986 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kolhapur, issued to the Petitioner Notice (Exhibit 'B' to the Petition) stating that the time limit for the Petitioner's occupation of the canteen under the Agreement was to come to an end on November 15, 1986. With this statement the Sub-Divisional Officer called upon the Petitioner to handover possession of the premises. On the receipt of the notice the Petitioner filed a Suit in the Civil Court contending that he is a tenant in the premises and could not be evicted therefrom. Pending the Suit he obtained interim injunction against his dispossession. He lost in that. His Appeal to the District Court was also unsuccessful. His Second Appeal to the High Court was also unsuccessful and it is stated at the bar that all throughout the pendency of the Appeal and the Second Appeal he was protected against dispossession by the Orders passed by the Court.

(3.) IF the premises in question are public premises within the meaning of Eviction Act and the Petitioner is proposed to be evicted from those premises, the provisions of the Eviction Act have to be complied with. That having not been done, the action to evict the Petitioner as per the Order of the Collector through the Tahsildar and as per the Tahsildar's notice to the Petitioner cannot be sustained. That action is therefore required to be quashed. Writ Petition is therefore allowed. The communication dated September 23, 1992 addressed by the District Collector of Kolhapur to the Tahsildar, Karveer, and the Notice dated October 6, 1992 issued by Tahsildar to the Petitioner are hereby quashed. It is explicitly made clear that the Respondents shall be at liberty to initiate action against the Petitioner under the Eviction Act, if they, under the law are entitled to and are so advised.