VISHWAS KRISHNARAO GANGURDE v. BANK OF INDIA AND ANR
Primacy of the Public Premises Act over State Rent Control Legislations and the Scope of High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction in Eviction Matters involving Unauthorized Subletting and Non-payment of Rent.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9857
Decision Date: 26-02-2026
List of Laws
The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971; The Constitution of India, Article 227; The Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947; The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999; The Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Principle of Res Judicata
- Facts: The suit premises were originally tenanted to Shri Dattatray Doiphode by Bank of Karad. In 1972, an eviction decree was passed against the original tenant under the Bombay Rent Act for reconstruction, but it was never successfully executed. In 1992, the Petitioner entered into an assignment agreement with the tenant to purchase goodwill and tenancy rights without the landlord's consent. Following the amalgamation of Bank of Karad with the Respondent-Bank of India in 1994, the premises became "public premises". In 2019, the Respondent issued an eviction notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) on grounds of unauthorized occupation, non-payment of rent for 47 years, and bonafide requirement. During proceedings, it was discovered that the Petitioner had further sublet the premises to a third party running a different business.
- Procedural Posture: The Estate Officer passed an eviction order on 8 July 2019. The Petitioner challenged this before the District Judge, Pune, who dismissed the appeal on 25 February 2021. The Petitioner then approached the Bombay High Court via a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Issue: Whether a "protected tenant" under State Rent Control legislation can resist eviction under the PP Act after the premises are acquired by a Government bank, and whether the eviction notice was valid despite clerical errors and alleged vagueness.
- Holding: No, the Petitioner cannot claim protection. The Court upheld the eviction, holding that the PP Act overrides State Rent Control Acts regarding public premises.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in "LIC v. Vita", which overruled "Suhas H. Pophale", establishing that the PP Act prevails over State Rent Acts for unauthorized occupants of public premises, regardless of when the tenancy was created. The Court found the Petitioner to be an unauthorized occupant who gained entry via an unsanctioned assignment and subsequently engaged in double subletting. Regarding the notice, the Court held that a typographical error in the hearing date (2018 instead of 2019) did not vitiate proceedings as the Petitioner participated without demur. Furthermore, the admission that rent was not paid for 47 years was fatal to the Petitioner's case. The Court emphasized that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave injustice and not for re-appreciating facts where the lower court's conclusion is justifiable.
🔒 For Members Only