Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shyam Ramapati Pandey, was allotted space for running a scooter and cycle stand at the Main Bus Stand, Ganesh Peth, Nagpur, by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) on 06-05-1983 for a period of 5 years. After the initial period, the respondent invited tenders, and the petitioner was again allotted the stand from 06-05-1988. On 23-11-1990, the respondent issued a circular allowing licensees who had completed 9 years to continue with increased licence fee. On 13-05-1999, the respondent issued a tender notice for fresh allotment. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.848 of 1999 seeking an injunction against the tender notice and later sought a direction to execute an agreement in his favour. An interim injunction was granted. On 03-10-2000, the respondent sent a notice to the petitioner for execution of an agreement with increased licence fee. Subsequently, the respondent initiated eviction proceedings under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955. The competent authority passed an eviction order under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner appealed under Section 7 of the Act before the Adhoc District Judge-1, Nagpur, who allowed the appeal on 06-09-2016, holding that the respondent was entitled to evict the petitioner. The petitioner's review application was dismissed on 18-02-2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging both orders. The High Court held that the petitioner was a licensee whose licence had expired, and he had no right to continue in possession. The eviction under the Act of 1955 was valid. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Eviction - Licensee - Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 - Sections 4 and 7 - The petitioner was allotted space for a scooter and cycle stand by the respondent-Corporation on 06-05-1983 for 5 years, and thereafter continued as a licensee. The respondent issued a tender notice on 13-05-1999 for fresh allotment, and the petitioner filed a suit for injunction. The respondent initiated eviction proceedings under the Act of 1955. The appellate court allowed the appeal under Section 7, holding that the respondent was entitled to evict the petitioner under Section 4. The High Court upheld the eviction, holding that the petitioner's licence had expired and he had no right to continue in possession. (Paras 1-10) B) Review - Dismissal - No Error Apparent on Record - The petitioner filed a review application which was dismissed by the appellate court on 18-02-2017. The High Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and upheld the dismissal. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, as a licensee of the respondent-Corporation, is entitled to protection against eviction under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 after the expiry of the licence period.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction order and the dismissal of the review application.
Law Points
- Licensee cannot claim protection after expiry of licence period
- Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act
- 1955 applies to government premises
- eviction order valid if licensee continues in possession after termination of licence
- review application dismissed for lack of merit.
