Bombay High Court

BANK OF INDIA THR. ATTORNEY MS. VIASHALI DAMODAR RAMTEKEversusRAJENDRA BALKRISHNA SALUNKHE

Decided: 2 April 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

The High Court set aside the district court judgments and remanded the appeals for fresh decision, holding that the Public Premises Act applies and the eviction orders must not be implemented pending the remand.

Summary

Bank of India filed six writ petitions challenging district court judgments that set aside eviction orders issued by an Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The respondents, occupants of the premises, argued that the eviction orders violated principles of natural justice and that they were protected by rent‑control legislation. The High Court noted that recent Supreme Court judgments (Dr. Suhas H. Pophale and LIC v. Vita) clarify that unauthorised occupants cannot invoke rent‑control statutes and that the Public Premises Act applies. It also observed that the district court failed to consider the existence of two separate eviction orders dated 8 July 2019 and did not examine the correctness of the orders. Consequently, the Court set aside the district court judgments, remanded the appeals for fresh determination on the merits, and directed that the eviction orders not be implemented pending the remand. The petitions were partly allowed and disposed of.

Issues considered

The applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to the occupants versus the protection of rent‑control legislation.
Whether the eviction orders dated 8 July 2019 were passed in violation of natural justice and procedural fairness.
The correctness and validity of the eviction orders issued by the Estate Officer.
The existence and service of two separate eviction orders dated 8 July 2019 and their impact on the district court's decision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

eviction
public premises act
rent control
natural justice
jurisdiction
remand
district court
writ petition

Judgment

Neeta Sawant 8-WP-10660-2023& GROUP.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10660 OF 2023
Bank of India, through Attorney
Ms. Vaishali Damodar Ramteke …..PETITIONER
: VERSUS :
Rajendra Balkrishna Salunkhe ….RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NO. 10661 OF 2023
Bank of India, through Attorney
Ms. Vaishali Damodar Ramteke …..PETITIONER
: VERSUS :
Suresh Umakant Lale ….RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NO. 10661 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13818 OF 2024
Bank of India, through Attorney
Ms. Vaishali Damodar Ramteke …..PETITIONER
: VERSUS :
Suresh Umakant Kale ….RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NO. 626 OF 2024
Bank of India, through Attorney
Ms. Vaishali Damodar Ramteke …..PETITIONER
: VERSUS :
Prasad Heramb Deshpande ….RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NO. 628 OF 2024
Bank of India, through Attorney
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 1 OF 7

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2026
Neeta Sawant 8-WP-10660-2023& GROUP.docx

Ms. Vaishali Damodar Ramteke …..PETITIONER
: VERSUS :
Vilas Keshav Beharay & Anr. ….RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION NO. 627 OF 2024
Bank of India, through Attorney
Ms. Vaishali Damodar Ramteke …..PETITIONER
: VERSUS :
Kusum Bhanudas Bhosale ….RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NO. 9820 OF 2023
Bank of India, through Attorney
Ms. Vaishali Damodar Ramteke …..PETITIONER
: VERSUS :
Yadnesh Chandrashekar Nagarkar ….RESPONDENT

Mr. Sunil M. Kadam with Mr. Abhishek Godwin, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sagar Bhirange, for the Respondent in WP-10660-2023 and WP-9820-
2023.
Mr. R.D. Soni i/b. Mr. Sandeep R. Waghmare, for the Respondent in WP-
10661-2023 and WP-628-2024.
Mr. Anand Lawate i/b. Mr. Sandeep R. Waghmare, for the Respondent in
WP-627-2024 and WP-626-2024.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : 2 APRIL, 2026.
P.C. :

1) These six petitions are filed by the Petitioner-Bank of India
challenging judgments and orders dated 5 February 2021 passed by the
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 2 OF 7

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2026
Neeta Sawant 8-WP-10660-2023& GROUP.docx

District Judge, Pune by which Public Premises Eviction Appeals (P.P.
Appeals) filed by Respondent-Occupants have been allowed and the eviction
orders passed by the Estate Officer on 8 July 2019 are set aside.

2) I have heard Mr. Kadam, the learned counsel for the Petitioner,
Mr. Bhirange, the learned counsel for the Respondents in Writ Petition No.
10660 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 9820 of 2023, Mr. Soni, the learned
counsel for the Respondents in Writ Petition No. 10661 of 2023 and Writ
Petition No. 628 of 2024, and Mr. Lawate, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondents in Writ Petition No. 626 of 2024 and Writ Petition No. 627 of
2024.

3) During the course of hearing of the Petition and on perusal of
the order passed by the learned District Judge, it appears that one of the
major reasons why the Appeals are allowed are on account of judgment of the
Apex Court in Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and its Estate Officer1. In recent judgment of the Apex Court in
Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and Anr. vs. Vita Pvt. Ltd. 2,, the
larger Bench of the Apex Court has answered the issue of correctness of ratio
in Dr. Suhas H. Pophale (supra). The Apex Court has concluded that a
person in unauthorised occupation of public premises under Section 2(e) of
the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971(P.P.
Act) cannot invoke protection of either of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) or the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In view of subsequent judgment of the
Larger Bench in LIC Versus. Vita (supra), the findings recorded by the

1 AIR 2014 SC 1509

2 2025 SCC Online SC 2772
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 3 OF 7

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2026
Neeta Sawant 8-WP-10660-2023& GROUP.docx

Appellate Court about impermissibility to take action against the occupants
under the P.P. Act are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The position
of law as it stands now is that provisions of P.P. Act are applicable in respect
of the occupants of premises belonging to the Respondent. The limited remit
of enquiry is now with regard to the correctness of eviction orders passed by
the Estate Officer.

4) It is the contention of the Respondents that principles of natural
justice were violated with impunity by the Estate Officer while passing the
impugned eviction orders. They complain that the eviction orders are passed
in a tearing hurry without grant of proper opportunity of defence. More
importantly, the Respondents make out a point that two separate eviction
orders, both dated 8 July 2019, exist on record. According to the
Respondents, a concise order dated 8 July 2019 containing no reasons were
served on them, which were challenged by them before the District Court.
On the other hand, the Petitioner-Bank produced detailed version of orders
dated 8 July 2019 containing elaborate reasons for eviction alongwith their
affidavit-in-reply. It is the case of the Respondents that the detailed version
of the order dated 8 July 2019 was never served on them. It appears that both
the versions of order dated 8 July 2019 were placed before the District Court.
However, no findings are recorded in the impugned judgment about
existence of two orders, both dated 8 July 2019. While allowing the Appeals,
the District Court was swayed mainly by the judgment in Dr. Suhas H.
Pophale and apparently found it unnecessary to conduct an indepth inquiry
into the aspect of correctness of the eviction order.

5) Since the District Court has allowed the Appeals mainly by
placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Dr. Suhas H. Pophale, it
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 4 OF 7

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2026
Neeta Sawant 8-WP-10660-2023& GROUP.docx

would be necessary for the District Court to apply its mind to the issue of
correctness of the eviction orders. In my view therefore, it would be
appropriate to remand the Appeals for fresh decision by the District Court in
the light of settled position of law that provisions of Public Premises Act
apply to the premises in question and that occupants thereof are not entitled
to claim benefit of rent control legislation.

6) Mr. Kadam, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has
strenuously relied upon judgments of this Court in Vishwas Krishnarao
Gangurde vs. Smt. Madhura Vishwas Gangurde and Ors.3 and Shrirang
Eknath Chavan versus. Bank of India and Anr. 4 He submits that the issue
involved in the present petitions is squarely covered by the decisions in
Vishwas Gangurde and Shrirang Chavan (supra). However, it is seen that in
those two cases, the District Judge had dismissed the Appeals preferred by
the occupants/tenants and had upheld the eviction orders passed by the
Estate Officer. One of the major reasons why the eviction of occupants in
Vishwas Gangurde and Shrirang Chavan is upheld by the District Court is
the act of unauthorised subletting, which was proved in both the cases. Both
the cases involved an element of transfer of tenancy under the guise of
transfer of business alongwith goodwill. The District Court found totally
unrelated persons occupying the premises on account of unauthorised
subletting. It is in the peculiar facts of those cases that this Court dismissed
the petitions filed by the occupants/tenants and confirmed the concurrent
orders passed by the Estate Officer and the District Court. In the present six
petitions, the occupants/tenants have succeeded before the District Court.
There is no allegation of unauthorised subletting and the original

3 Writ Petition No. 6715 of 2021 decided on 26 February 2026

4 Writ Petition No. 16675 of 2023 decided on 12 March 2026

_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 5 OF 7

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2026
Neeta Sawant 8-WP-10660-2023& GROUP.docx

tenants/occupants continue to possess their respective premises. In my view,
therefore the decisions in Vishwas Gangurde and Shrirang Chavan would
not apply to the facts of the present case.

7) As observed above, the District Court found it unnecessary to
conduct an elaborate enquiry into the correctness of eviction order on
account of conclusion reached by it that the occupants/tenants were entitled
to protection of rent control legislation due to inapplicability of the provisions
of the P.P. Act and in view of judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Suhas H.
Pophale. Most importantly, the District Court did not notice existence of
two separate orders, both dated 8 July 2019. Considering these peculiar
circumstances of the present case, in my view, it would be appropriate to
remand the Appeals for fresh decision by the District Court so that it can
conduct a proper enquiry into the correctness of the eviction orders on
account of settlement of other issue of application of provisions of P.P. Act.
I accordingly proceed to pass the following order :

(i)Judgments and orders dated 5 February 2021 passed by the
District Court are set aside. P.P. Appeals are remanded for fresh
decision by the District Court on their own merits.

(ii) In the remanded Appeals, the District Court shall not go into the
issue of application of provisions of P.P. Act and shall proceed on
the footing that the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to initiate eviction
proceedings and pass order under the provisions of the P.P. Act.

(iii) The eviction orders passed by the Estate Officer shall not be
implemented till decision of the Appeals.
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 6 OF 7

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2026
Neeta Sawant 8-WP-10660-2023& GROUP.docx

(iv) All contentions of parties, except applicability of provisions of
the P.P. Act, are expressly kept open to be decided by the District
Court.
8) With the above directions, the petitions are partly allowed and
disposed of. The Interim Applications also stand disposed of.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.04.06
18:46:26
+0530

_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 7 OF 7

THURSDAY, 2 APRIL 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…