1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against concurrent findings of fact and law by the competent authority as well as appellate authority, but Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner being a tenant of respondent had occupied premises since last 28 years and had a small business of printing by installing small machines in the premises. Learned advocate further submits that in case if the respondent authority decides to construct a super-structure for office of the Government and if they require any printing or xerox facility in the premises, case of the petitioner may be considered on the priority basis subject to fulfilling conditions that may be laid down by the authority.
3. Mr.
G.P. Baghel, learned advocate for Mr. H.S. Munshaw submits that the petitioner has no right title over the premises or over the part of the premises and the petitioner cannot claim any right for alternative space at public property.
4. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties, on merit their appears to be no case in view of discussion of evidence on record by the courts below but considering occupation of the premises for about 28 years and as on date the petitioner is rendered jobless, in future if the respondent-State authority decides to construct a super-structure for offices of the Government/panchayat and if any facility for printing/xerox etc is required, case of the petitioner may be considered in the backdrop of the above facts that he was occupant of the premises since last 28 years.
5. Though this writ petition lacks merit but subject to the observations made herein above, this petition stands disposed of. Notice discharged.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top