Statutory Due Process Prevails in Industrial Lease Eviction: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has fortified the procedural sanctity of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, ruling that eviction orders founded on established grounds like unauthorized subletting remain valid even if additional unproven allegations are included.

A single-judge bench of Justice Aarti Sathe adjudicated the matter, emphasizing that supervisory jurisdiction under Constitution of India, 1950 is not a license to re-appreciate evidence but a correctional tool for grave legal dereliction. The Bombay High Court was hearing a challenge against an eviction order issued by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) concerning an industrial plot in Thane.

Key Takeaways

Procedural Default Consequence

Failure to reply to a statutory show-cause notice under Section 4 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 prevents a litigant from later alleging a breach of natural justice if they did not avail themselves of the opportunity to contest facts.

Validity of Multi-Ground Orders

An eviction order is not vitiated merely because it includes additional grounds not found in the initial notice, provided at least one relevant and established ground (like subletting) independently justifies the decision.

Scope of Article 227

High Courts will not act as courts of first appeal to re-weigh facts or substitute judicial conclusions under supervisory jurisdiction unless the lower tribunal's finding is perverse or arbitrary.

Court Observations on Eviction and Natural Justice

The Bombay High Court noted that the Petitioner had been issued a notice as far back as 2016 regarding subletting allegations but chose not to deny the facts at that stage. Justice Sathe observed that the competent authority followed the mandate of Section 4 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 by specifying grounds and providing an opportunity to show cause.

The Bombay High Court, in its reasoning, observed that "...where the quasi-judicial order has been passed on several grounds, the inclusion of an irrelevant or non-existent ground does not invalidate the order if the authority was justified on the basis of another existing relevant ground which independently would have led to the same conclusion. In the facts of the present case, the common ground in the impugned eviction notice and the impugned eviction order was of illegal subletting, which has neither been disproved, nor sufficiently answered to the contrary by the Petitioner."

Ratio

An eviction order passed by a competent authority under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 is legally sustainable if it is based on at least one proven statutory ground, such as unauthorized subletting, regardless of whether the order mentions additional unproven grounds. Furthermore, a party that fails to participate in the show-cause process provided under Section 4(2) of the Act cannot subsequently invoke the writ jurisdiction to claim a denial of natural justice.

Background

The dispute originated from an Agreement to Lease executed in 1961 for Plot No. B-4, Wagle Industrial Estate. The Petitioner, Jay Steel Rolling and Engineering Works, acquired the leasehold rights through a transfer in 1972 and a subsequent Will. In 2016, MIDC issued a demand notice alleging unauthorized subletting and seeking over ₹1.5 crores in charges. Following a termination notice in 2017 and subsequent litigation, MIDC issued a fresh eviction notice under Section 4(2) of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 in March 2019.

The Petitioner contended that the final eviction order dated December 11, 2019, traveled beyond the scope of the show-cause notice by adding new grounds and failed to consider a reply dated March 26, 2019. However, the Bombay High Court found that the Petitioner had not pleaded the existence of this reply before the Trial Court and that the reply itself did not address the merits of the subletting charges. Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Babulal Kriparam Takkamore and others, the Bombay High Court held that the order remained valid due to the established ground of subletting. The Court also cited Garment Craft v. Prakash Chandra Goel ( "(2022) 4 SCC 181": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 15) to define the limits of its supervisory jurisdiction, ultimately dismissing the Writ Petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 2337 OF 2023
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:40006
Case Title: Jay Steel Rolling and Engineering Works v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mutahhar Khan a/w Mr. Medhavin Bhatt a/w Ms. Manashvi Shah i/b M/s MV Law Partners, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Adv. V.R. Raje, AGP for the State; Adv. Shyamali Gadre i/b Little and Company, for MIDC

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 6510