NEELAM JAGMOHAN VOHRA AND ANOTHERversusMAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MSRTC

2026:BHC-AUG:34183


                                                   1                     922.odt


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 8901 OF 2022


                        NEELAM JAGMOHAN VOHRA AND ANOTHER

                                              VERSUS

                   MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
                      THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MSRTC

                                                ...
                       Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Chaudhari Deepak D.
                      Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Bhausaheb S. Deshmukh
                                                …

                                                  CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

                                                  DATE   : 06th AUGUST, 2026


              PER COURT :

              1.           The Petitioners assail the judgment and order dated

              28.07.2022, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar,

              (for short, ‘the learned PDJ’) in Regular Civil Appeal no. 09/2021,

              whereby confirmed the order passed by the Competent Authority/

              Resident Deputy Collector, Ahmednagar, (for short, the learned

              ‘Competent Authority’) on 18.01.2021, in Eviction Case no. 02/2017, has

              been challenged in this Writ Petition.
                                     2                        922.odt


2.           Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and

Respondent / Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation.

3.           Factual matrix of the case is as under :

             Admittedly, the premises in question are government

premises. It is alleged that the premises/shop were given to them on a

Leave and License Agreement basis and the said license was renewed till

15.03.2017. After 15.03.2017, it was not extended. Thus, after

termination of the agreement, the Petitioners have no concern with it.

Despite the termination of the Leave and License Agreement, Petitioners

did not vacate the premises. Therefore, the Respondent has filed an

Application before the Competent Authority for eviction of the same and

the Competent Authority, after considering the material placed before

him by order dated 18.01.2021, directed the Respondent to evict the

Petitioners from the disputed premises.

4.           Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners have preferred

Regular Civil Appeal before the learned P.D.J., Ahmednagar, who by

judgment and order dated 28.07.2022 dismissed the Appeal and

confirmed the order passed by the learned Competent Authority.

Disgruntled by the same, they have preferred this Petition.

5.           Learned Advocate for the Petitioners vehemently contended

that the Respondent did not follow the procedure prescribed under the
                                      3                         922.odt


Government Premises Act and, without assigning any reasons, filed the

Application for eviction of the Petitioners, and the Competent Authority,

without assigning any reasons, passed the order, and therefore, the order

cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. To buttress his submissions, he has

relied upon the order of this Court in Suhas S/o. Vishwanath Kolapukar Versus

Assistant Collector, Ahmednagar and another, reported in 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 50 .

Therefore, he urged that the Petition be allowed by setting aside the

impugned order.

6.           On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the Respondent

submitted that the Leave and License contract was terminated on

15.03.2017. Therefore, the Petitioners have no authority to continue with

the possession. The Petitioners are unauthorised occupants. It is further

submitted that on 05.08.2016, the Petitioners replied to the Respondent

that they would hand over the vacant possession of the Premises upon the

expiry of the license period, but neither acted as per their undertaking to

the Authority nor vacated the premises. Therefore, the order passed by

the Authority as well as the learned Principal District Judge is just and

proper and no interference is required.

7.           Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and gone

through the record, it appears that undisputedly the premises in

question/shop are the Government property. The Leave and License
                                      4                         922.odt


period had expired on 14.03.2017. Thereafter, on 29.03.2017, the

Respondent issued notice to the Petitioners for vacating the said premises

on or before 31.03.2017. Despite service of the said notice, they have not

handed over possession.

8.            As such, Respondent has filed the eviction proceeding

against the Petitioners and issued the eviction notice to them. On that

notice, the Petitioners have stated that they will hand over the vacant

possession upon the expiry of the license period. After considering the

material, the learned Competent Authority passed the order on

18.01.2021, observing that despite the termination of the Leave and

License Agreement, the Petitioners have not handed over the government

premises to the Respondent, and they are in unauthorised possession of

the same and directed them to hand over the possession of the premises

immediately. The finding recorded by the learned Competent Authority is

sufficient to indicate that the Petitioners are in unauthorised possession of

the premises and not entitled to continue with the same. Still, they did not

hand over the same to the Respondent, and therefore, I do not find any

illegality in the said findings.

9.            In such an eventuality, and the facts that the Petitioners are

not coming to the Court with clean hands and not following the law, I do

not find substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the
                                        5                     922.odt


Petitioners that the learned Authority has not considered their say in the

proceeding. In such circumstances, in my view, it is not necessary to deal

with each and every aspect stated in the Petition. Still, prima facie it is

the duty of the Petitioners to point out that they have the Government

premises in authorized/legal possession, but they failed to demonstrate

the same. On the contrary, it is apparent that they are in unauthorised

possession of the premises. Therefore, I do not find substance in the

contentions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioners that the finding

recorded by the learned Competent Authority is illegal.

10.           The learned Principal District Judge has considered the

submissions of the learned Advocate for the Petitioners in detail and held

that “after expiry of the license period, in response to the Respondent’s

eviction notice, the Petitioners replied that they would vacate the

premises, but they did not vacate.” Therefore, the Competent Authority

has rightly passed the eviction order.

11.           Apart from that, it is observed that “the Petitioners’ main

ground for renewal of the license is against the government policy not to

continue the Zunka Bhakar Kendre, and therefore, held that the

Petitioners failed to make out the ground to set aside the impugned

order.” I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned order

to interfere with it in the writ jurisdiction.
                                         6                               922.odt


12.          Perused the judgment in the case of Suhas S/o. Vishwanath

Kolapukar (supra), relied upon by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners,

I would like to reproduce the facts of the said case as reproduced in

paragraph no. 5 of the said petition, as under :

             “5.    The petitioners claim to be lessees of the premises
             owned by the Municipal Council Rahuri. The petitioners
             were given premises/shops on rent. The Municipal Council
             Rahuri issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to
             vacate the subject premises. In the earlier round of litigation,
             in an order dated 10th August, 2007 passed in Writ Petition No.
             4343 of 2007 this Court (Coram: R.M Savant, J.) recorded a
             statement made on behalf of the Municipal Council that they
             would withdraw notices issued to the petitioners and consequent
             to the withdrawal of the said notice the suits filed by the
             petitioners would be withdrawn by the present petitioners. On
             behalf of the Municipal Council a further statement was made
             before this Court that they would follow the procedure
             prescribed for eviction under the Bombay Government Premises
             (Eviction) Act, 1955 by issuing notices to the present petitioners
             as provided under the said Act and thereafter the provisions of
             the said Act would be followed in the matter of hearing the
             petitioners and passing final orders under the said Act.”


13.          Bare perusal of the said facts, it appears that the facts in the

said case and in the present case are distinct, in the said case the

Munciple Council did not follow the procedure prescribed for eviction

under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 and
                                        7                     922.odt


therefore On behalf of the Municipal Council a statement was made

before the Court that they would follow the procedure prescribed for

eviction under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955,

as such, what have been observed in the said judgment is hardly of any

assistance to him in support of his contention. On the contrary, in my

view, the Petitioners are not following the law nor vacating the

Government Premises. Thereby, they did not come to the Court with

clean hands, but are unauthorizedly occupying the Government premises

for which they are not entitled, and therefore, in my view, the Petitioners

are not entitled to any relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this

Court.

14.          That being so, the petition being bereft of merits, stands

dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

15.          It is made clear that since 15.03.2017, the Petitioners are in

unauthorised possession of the Government premises. The Respondent is

entitled to recover the damages from them as quantified by the competent

Court/Authority.

16.          The Petitioners are further directed to vacate the premises

immediately and hand over the possession of the said premises to the

Respondent within a period of one week from today. Failing which, the

Respondent is entitled to recover damages from them.
                                    8                            922.odt


16.          The Petitioners are directed to deposit the costs of Rs.

10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with the Respondent / Authority or before

the learned Principal District Judge, on or before 07.09.2026.




                                              ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )




SPC