DR.PREETI BHATT Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-85
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on July 20,2017

Dr.Preeti Bhatt Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.S.OKA,J. - (1.) These writ petitions can be disposed together as the same relate to the same property. The subject matter of these petitions is the property known as "Ewart House" situated at 22, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 032 (for short "the said building"). The said building comprises of ground plus four upper floors. The respondent in the Writ Petition No.1290 of 2015 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5315 of 2012 is Central Bank of India, which a body corporate established under the provisions of the Bank Companies (Acquisition and Approval of Undertakings) Act,1970 having its central office at Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. By a deed of conveyance dated 22 nd May 1972, the Life Insurance Corporation of India sold the said building to Central Bank of India (for short "the said Bank").
(2.) The said Bank filed an application before the Estate Officer appointed under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act,1971 (for short "the said Act of 1971"). The eviction application was filed against the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1290 of 2012 and the first respondent in Writ Petition No.5315 of 2012 Dr.Preeti Bhatt (for the sake of convenience referred as "the tenant"). It was stated in the said application by the said Bank that the tenant was in occupation of a premises on the fourth floor of the said building. It was stated that the area of the said premises on the fourth floor was 1800 sq ft of carpet area (for short "the said premises"). Monthly rent was Rs.683.85. In the application, it was stated that by Advocate's notice dated 13 th June 2007, the tenancy of the tenant was terminated by the said Bank and the tenant was called upon to vacate the said premises. The tenant replied to the said notice raising various contentions. The first prayer in the said application made before the Estate Officer was for directing the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the said premises to the said Bank. The second prayer was for directing the tenant to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs.2,17,000/- per month with effect from 1st July 2007 till the date of handing over vacant possession of the said premises to the said Bank with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum.
(3.) The said application was contested by the tenant by filing a written statement. It was contended in the written statement that her deceased father Mr.R.S.Bhatt was the original tenant in respect of the said premises. She stated that she was residing in the said premises right from the year 1950 with her father. It was contended that she was suffering from Cancer and that she has been considered to be legally blind. She relied upon a medical certificate issued to that effect. She contended that the notice of termination of tenancy was illegal. She contended that the said Bank was not a Statutory Authority within the meaning of sub clause (iii) of clause (f-a) of section 2 of the said Act of 1971. The tenant denied the claim for compensation made by the Bank.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.