Lessees of public land not protected under Rent Control Act: HC

The court was hearing a petition filed by Raian Karanjwala and Farhiz Karanjwala, legal heirs of one Dara Sidhwa, lessee of a plot owned by the Mumbai Port Authority (MbPA) in Mazgaon Reclamation Estate

MUMBAI: Lessees of government/ public land are not protected from eviction as per provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and eviction proceedings can be initiated against them under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the Bombay high court held in a recent order.

Lessees of public land not protected under Rent Control Act: HC

The court was hearing a petition filed by Raian Karanjwala and Farhiz Karanjwala, legal heirs of one Dara Sidhwa, lessee of a plot owned by the Mumbai Port Authority (MbPA) in Mazgaon Reclamation Estate. The land was leased out to Sidhwa in 1962 – he built a six-storey building on it and sub-leased portions of the building to others.

The MbPA terminated the lease in June 2010 on various grounds. In August 2013, it filed eviction proceedings before the estate officer and prayed for vacant possession of the land.

In May 2015, Raian and Farhiz Karanjwala filed a written statement and claimed that since the premises were not covered under the definition of “public premises” as contemplated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the estate officer had no jurisdiction to entertain an eviction petition. They also claimed they had protection from eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

On November 22, 2023, the estate officer dismissed their claim, holding that they had no protection from eviction under the Rent Control Act and therefore he had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the eviction petition.

Raian and Farhiz Karanjwala then approached the high court, contending that the land was leased in 1962, whereas it was defined as “public premises” for the first time in 1982. section 4(4)(a) of the Bombay Rent Control Act had carved out an exception under which they were protected from eviction, the Karanjwalas contended.

The argument, however, failed to impress the single judge bench of justice Manish Pitale. The purpose behind introducing section 4(4)(a) in the Bombay Rent Control Act was to provide protection to sub-lessees and therefore, protection granted by the Bombay Rent Control Act and thereafter, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, would be available only to sub-lessees and tenants or sub-tenants, not original lease holders, the court clarified.

“It is the relationship inter se between the lessee and his sub-lessees/ tenants/ sub-tenants that would be governed by the rent control legislations, and it has nothing to do with the land belonging to the government or a local authority leased out to the original lessee,” the court said in the order dated December 5.