Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 01 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Jay Steel Rolling and Engineering Works, sole proprietor Amit Lokendra Jain, factory located at Plot No. B‑4, Wagle Estate Industrial Area, Thane.
  • Respondent: Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), represented by the Collector & Regional Officer, MIDC, Thane Region‑1.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking quash of the eviction notice dated 19 March 2019 and eviction order dated 11 December 2019 issued under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, and of the trial court judgment dated 6 February 2020 (Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2020).
  • Background:
  • 25 Nov 1961 – MIDC executed a perpetual lease of the premises to Shri M. B. Patel (Mohanlal & Co.).
  • 1972 – MIDC permitted assignment of leasehold rights to Shri Lokender Bhagwan Jain and Smt Tejaswani Bhagwan Jain (partners of the petitioner).
  • 1974 – Sale certificate issued for Rs 3,31,000 confirming transfer of rolling mill and leasehold rights to the petitioner’s partners.
  • 2010 – Will executed by Shri Lokender Bhagwan Jain bequeathing leasehold rights to Shri Amit Lokender Jain (current petitioner).
  • 2013 – Death of Shri Lokender Bhagwan Jain; probate petition filed by Amit Jain (pending).
  • 2014 – Petitioner's application to MIDC for transfer of lease in his name remained unattended.
  • 20 Dec 2016 – MIDC issued demand notice alleging unauthorized sub‑letting, demanding Rs 1,51,79,700 within 15 days, threatening termination of lease.
  • 19 July 2017 – MIDC issued termination notice of the 1961 lease and demanded vacant possession, claiming possession taken on 2 Aug 2017 (panchnama drawn).
  • 2017 – Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9771 of 2017 challenging the 2016 demand and 2017 termination notice.
  • 19 Mar 2019 – MIDC served eviction notice under Section 4(2) of the Act alleging breach of Clause 3(j) (unauthorised sub‑letting) and failure to execute a lease deed.
  • 26 Mar 2019 – Petitioner replied, denying allegations and requesting deferment pending Writ 9771/2017; receipt of this reply was disputed.
  • 11 Dec 2019 – MIDC issued eviction order under Section 4, directing vacancy within one month; received by petitioner on 16 Dec 2019.
  • 2020 – Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2020 filed before the Principal District Judge, Thane; trial court dismissed the appeal on 6 Feb 2020, confirming the eviction notice and order.
  • Relief Sought: Quash of the 2020 judgment, eviction notice, and eviction order; stay of their operation; removal of seal on premises; injunction restraining MIDC officers; interim orders.
  • Contentions:
  • Petitioner argued the eviction order went beyond the notice, was non‑speaking, ignored his March 2019 reply, and violated natural‑justice principles.
  • Respondent MIDC contended eviction was proper on grounds of illegal sub‑letting, that notice complied with statutory requirements, and that petitioner failed to reply.
  • Both sides cited various precedents on natural‑justice and multi‑ground orders.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, after reviewing the pleadings and statutory provisions, held that the eviction notice and order were both based on the same ground of illegal sub‑letting, satisfying the requirements of Section 4 of the Act.
  • It observed that the petitioner did not file a substantive reply to the eviction notice; therefore, no violation of natural‑justice principles occurred.
  • The trial court’s judgment dated 6 February 2020 was deemed correct and not perverse; consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
  • No stay was granted, the seal remained, and no costs were awarded to either party.

Topics: Eviction, Article 227, Lease Dispute