- (1.) This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order dated 15/1/1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High court in WP No. 6276 of 1996.
(2.) The petitioner had a lease on monthly basis and the respondent had offered it for five years though the petitioner had not accepted the same. Subsequently, as found by the courts below, the lease expired in January1990 by efflux of time. However, the tenancy was determined by order dated 24/12/1994. Thereafter, summary proceedings were initiated under Section 105-B (1 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (3 of 1888 (for short "the Act") and eviction order was passed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the civil court which by order dated 5/12/1996 affirmed the eviction order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition which has come to be dismissed by the High court. Thus this special leave petition.
(3.) Shri Bhimrao Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on a decision of this court in Prakash Warehousing Co. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, contends that the respondent has no power to unilaterally terminate the tenancy, after the expiry of the period of lease, unless any of the grounds is made out either in terms of the contract or under the statute for ejecting the petitioner. In the light of the law laid down in the said decision, the eviction order is illegal. The petitioner cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant and the respondent could not avail of the summary remedy under Section 105-B (1 of the Act. We find no force in the contention of Shri Naik. It is seen that the renewal made in 1985 expired in 1990. He placed before us a copy of the lease. Admittedly, it does not prescribe any particular period of lease but it mentions the words "from month to month". In other words, it is a tenancy on monthly basis. Correspondence appears to have taken place between the parties on the fixation of the period of the lease which ultimately did not bear fruit. Be that as it may, the question is whether the petitioner can be treated as "unauthorised occupant" within the meaning of Section 105-B (1 (b) of the Act which reads as under: "105-B.(1 Where the Commissioner is satisfied- (a) * * * (b) that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any corporation premises; (c) * * * the Commissioner may notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, by notice (served by post, or by affixing a copy of it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of such premises, or in such other manner as may be provided for by regulations) , order that that person, as well as any other person who may be in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises, shall vacate them within one month of the date of the service of the notice. ";