IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2383 OF 2024 KAJECTAN SANTAN CARNEIRO VERSUS THE STATE OF ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER Mr. Shaikh M. A.Jahagirdar, Advocate for the petitioner CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 26th FEBRUARY, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 16th March, 2023 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 203 of 2017 under Section 7 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) confirming order passed by the Competent Authority under the said Act dated 26th May, 2017 in Eviction Case No. 4 of 2000, directing eviction of petitioner from the subject premises. 2. Parties are referred to as ‘occupant’ and ‘MSEDCL’ for the sake of convenience. 3. MSEDCL initiated proceedings being Eviction Case No. 4 of 2000 before the Competent Authority under the provision of the Act for seeking eviction of the occupant from the subject premises. It is the case of the MSEDCL that the occupant is brother of Felix Carneiro who was 909.wp2383.24.odt 1 of 6 2025:BHC-AUG:6177 employed with MSEDCL. He retired on 31st March, 1999. The subject premises was allotted to the Felix as a servant quarter. Prior thereto his father was occupying the said premises in the capacity of the employee and as a servant quarter. After retirement of Felix, he refused to hand over the possession of the subject premises. Felix filed suit through his brother before the Civil Court bearing R.C.S. No. 251 of 1999, 474 of 2005 and Special Civil Suit No. 107 of 2014 seeking reliefs in respect of the subject premises. In the said proceedings the Civil Court has held that the occupant has no right to hold the subject premises and that the subject premises was allotted to Felix i.e. a brother of the occupant as a servant quarter. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that his father was granted oral gift of the subject premises by American Maratha Mission and therefore he has become owner thereof. The Competent Authority under the Act passed order of eviction dated 26th May, 2017. Against the said order, appeal preferred under Section 7 of the Act before the District Court, Ahmednagar. Principal District Judge decided the said appeal by judgment dated 16th March, 2023 rejecting the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has raised objection with regard to the title and ownership of MSEDCL in respect of the subject premises. It is his contention that once such issue 909.wp2383.24.odt 2 of 6 is raised, the Estate Officer/ Competent Authority has no jurisdiction to issue notice under the Act and to evict the occupant. To support his submission he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India and Another (2019) 20 SCC 705. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the occupant is brother of Felix and son of Santan. Santan and Felix were employed with MSEDCL. Eviction proceeding are filed under the Act as the occupant unauthorizedly holding the possession of the subject premises. 7. When objection is raised by the occupant with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings under the Act on the ground that he has raised issue of the title and ownership of MSEDCL in respect of the subject premises, a reference needs to the judgment passed by Civil Court in R.C.S. No. 251 of 1999. The issue involved before the Civil Court was as to whether the plaintiff i.e. occupant herein was in lawful possession of the subject premises and whether the MSEDCL proves that Felix, brother of occupant was its employee and that till his retirement the subject premises was held by him other service quarter. While answering the said issues on the basis of evidence led before the Court following findings are recorded:- ^^7- eh nkok feGdrhP;k ekyeRrsP;k dkMkZrhy mrkjk ikghyk 909.wp2383.24.odt 3 of 6 R;ke/;s :-5]42]000@& yk O;ogkjk}kjs vgenuxj bysdVzhd lIyk; daiuhdMwu dk;Zdkjh vfHk;ark egkjk”Vz jkT; fo|qr egkeaMG vgenuxj ;kauh tkxk ?ksrysyh fnlwu ;srs o fnukad 19@9@1998 pk 7@12 pk mrkjk ikgrk ekydkps uko ,DlhD;qVhOg baftfu;j vls QsjQkjP;k uksanh uqlkj fnlwu ;srs- 8- eh oknh o izfroknh ;kaP;k odhykaps lfoLrj Eg.k.ks ,sdys- lOgsZ ua- 6678 ;ke/;s vesfjdu ejkBh fe’ku yk ljdkjus HkkM;kus tkxk fnyh gksrh- ijarq uarj ekyeRrsP;k jftLVMZ mrk&;kojrhy ijr [kjsnhus :- 5]42]000@& vgenuxj bysDVzhd lIyk; daiuhdMwu dk;Zdkjh vfHk;ark egkjk”Vz jkT; fo|qr egkeaMG vgenuxj ;kauh [kjsnh dsysyh fnlwu ;sr vkgs- ;k myV izfroknh ua- 1 us fu’kk.kh 42 yk nkO;kr nk[ky dsysY;k lk{khP;k ‘kiFk i=kuqlkj QsfyDl dkfuZjks gs fnukad 31@3@1969 jksth lsok fuo`Rr >kys o R;kaP;klkscrp oknh gs jkgkr gksrs o gk nkok fnukad 6@6@1999 jksth Eg.kts oknhps Hkkm QsfyDl dkfuZjks ;kaP;k lsok fuo`Rrh uarj nk[ky dsysys vkgs- R;keqGs oknhpk tkxsojhy rkck gk ekydh gDdkpk o dk;ns’khj ukgh vls ‘kiFk i=kr lkafxrys- oknh R;kaP;k ofMykauk vesfjdu fe’ku us rksaMh cf{klkus tkxk fnyh gksrh ;kyk dkxnksi=h ok brj iqjkok ukgh R;keqGs oknh gk fnukad 7@6@1999 jksth Eg.ktsp nkok nk[ky dj.;kP;k rkj[ksyk dk;ns’khj fjR;k rkck vkgs ;k xks”Vhyk dk;ns’khj vf/k”Bku ukgh- R;keqGs oknhpk iqjkok fcurksM ukgh- loZ rksaMh o dkxnksi=h iqjkok ikgkrk vls Li”Vi.ks fnlrs dh oknhps oMhy lu 1955 i;Zar dkgh fof’k”V vVhaoj nkok feGdr rkC;kr gksrh- oknhps ca/kw uksdjhr vlrkauk rs ;k tkxsr rkC;kr gksrs o rs gh l/;k egkjk”Vz jkT; fo|qr egkeaMG e/;s uksdjhr vlY;keqGs frp tkxk R;kauk ns.;kr vkyh- oknh ,dhdMs okjlkgDdkus feGdrhpk rkck vkgs vls Eg.krks rj R;kaps ca/kw uksdjhr vlY;keqGs r;kauk DokWVZj fnyh gksrh vls Eg.krks gs Eg.k.ks folaxr vkgs- Eg.kwu eh eqnnk ua- 1 fl/n u dsY;keqGs R;kps mRrj ukgh vls nsr vkgs- 10- eqnnk dzekad 3 %& izfroknhp ps lk{khnkj ;kauh fu’kk.kh 42 yk R;kaP;k lk{khps ‘kiFki= lknj dsys R;ke/;s R;kauh vls EgVys dh oknhps oMhy lu 1955 lkyh e;r >kys R;kuarj R;kaph brj nksu eqys R;kiSdh QsfyDl gk lq/nk daiuhr uksdjhr vlY;kus R;kaP;k ukokus lnjps dkWVZj deZpkjh Eg.kwu ns.;kr vkys- lu 1971 e/;s lnj daiuhdMwu ‘kklukus oht eaMGkyk laiw.kZ feGdr okj.;kps gDd fnys- R;kauh QsfyDl 909.wp2383.24.odt 4 of 6 dkfuZjks ;kauk nkok feGdr gh dkWVZj Eg.kwu jkg.;kl fnyh xsyh o R;kuqlkj fu;ekizek.ks ‘kkldh; HkkMs dikr dsyh xsyh- ;keqGs lnj rksaMh o dkxnksi=h iqjkO;ko:u o fnukad 27@11@1975 P;k i=ko:u R;kauh gs ekU; dsys dh rs egkjk”Vz jkT; fo|qr egkeaMG ps deZpkjh vkgsr o R;kauk R;k dkWVZje/;s jkgw ‘kdrkr- ;k loZ xks”Vho:u izfroknhpk iqjkok fcurksM okVrks ;keqGs oknhpk Hkkm QsfyDl dkfuZjks yk egkjk”Vz jkT; fo|qr egkeaMG ps deZpkjh Eg.kwu rs dkWVZj jkg.;kl fnys gksrs o rs lsok fuo`Rrhi;Zar R;k dkWVZje/;s jkgkr gksrs R;keqGs eqnnk dzekad 3 gs fl/n dsY;keqGs R;kps mRrj gks; vls fnys-** 8. The Civil Court therefore has held that occupant has failed to prove that the subject premises was gifted by American Maratha Mission to his father. On the contrary findings are recorded by holding that the subject premises was purchased by MSEDCL and it cannot be allotted to Santan initially and then to Felix as a servant quarter, since they were employed with MSEDCL. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that this judgment passed of the Civil Court has not been challenged before the higher Court and as such it has attained finality. It is thereafter two other suits being R.C.S. No. 474 of 2005 and Special Civil Suit No. 107 of 2014 were filed by the occupant. These suits are also dismissed. For want of challenge to these judgments and decrees, these judgments have attained finality. 10. It is thus clear from the above record that the Competent Civil Court has held that the subject premises was allotted to the father and brother of the occupant as a servant quarter. Since, there is no 909.wp2383.24.odt 5 of 6 challenge to the said finding, the same is binding on the parties. In the light of this fact, the judgment in case of Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji (supra) does not come to the aid of the present petitioner. In the said case it was held that the Estate Officer will have no jurisdiction to issue notice when the occupant raises bonafide claim about his right over the premises. First of all herein this case the claim of the occupant is not bonafide and secondly, his claim is already rejected by the Competent Civil Court. In such circumstances question of the said issue being raised before Authority or even before any other Court for want of challenge to the judgment and decree passed in the above suit is not permissible. 11. There is sufficient evidence led by the MSEDCL in order to establish that the occupant is in unauthorized occupation of the subject premises. The Appellate Court has also rightly taken into account the material on record while dismissing the appeal. This Court therefore finds no perversity in the order passed by the Courts below. As a result of which, petition stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 909.wp2383.24.odt 6 of 6