MANISH PITALE, J. - (1.) By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged judgment and order dated 06092016, passed by the Adhoc District Judge1, Nagpur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.117 of 2008, whereby appeal filed by the respondent under Section 7 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act of 1955'), has been allowed and it has been held that the respondent is entitled to evict the petitioner from the premises in question i.e. Scooter Stand alloted at Main Bus Stand at Ganesh Peth, Nagpur, under Section 4 of the said Act. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 18022017, passed by the aforesaid Court dismissing review application filed by the petitioner.
(2.) The facts of the present case are, that the respondent Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, had alloted space for running Scooter and Cycle Stand at the Main Bus Stand, Ganesh Peth, Nagpur to the petitioner on 06051983, for a period of 5 years. Thereafter, the respondentCorporation invited tenders for allotment of the said premises in which the petitioner participated and he was again alloted the said stand with effect from 06051988. On 23111990, the respondent Corporation issued a Circular, wherein it was provided that licensees like the petitioner who had completed 9 years over such premises could be continued with increase in licence fee. On 13051999, the respondent Corporation issued a tender notice in newspapers calling for fresh tender for allotment of the aforesaid space for Scooter and Cycle Stand. On 31051999, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction bearing Regular Civil Suit No.848 of 1999, before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, praying for an order of injunction to restrain the respondentCorporation from acting upon the aforesaid tender notice dated 13051999. It was further prayed by way of an amendment that the respondentCorporation be directed to execute an agreement in favour of the petitioner for allotting the aforesaid Scooter and Cycle Stand. An order of temporary injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner in the said suit.
(3.) On 03102000, the respondentCorporation sent a notice to the petitioner for taking steps for execution of agreement in respect of the said premises, stipulating increase in amount of the licence fee and calling upon the petitioner to deposit certain amounts. On 21112000, the petitioner sent a reply to the said notice dated 01102000 and stated that the amount of increase in licence fee claimed by the respondent Corporation was exorbitant and arbitrary and that the petitioner would be regularly making payment of specific amount towards licence fee annually and thereafter, the amount would be raised by 10%. There was no agreement executed between the parties in respect of the said premises.;