Justice Sandeep V. Marne, Bombay High Court 

The Bombay High Court has held that where rent control protection is unavailable, a public authority can withdraw the authority to occupy public premises by notice, “without citing any reason,” and need not establish any valid reason before the Estate Officer. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Vita Civil Appeal No.(s). 2638 of 2023 dated 11.12.2025.

Dismissing three writ petitions by Reunion Group companies, the Court upheld orders directing their eviction from the Reserve Bank of India’s Amar Building at Fort, Mumbai. It held that, although not required, the RBI had in any case established its security requirement. It continued the interim protection for four weeks.

A Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “In my view therefore when premises are occupied on the assumption of protection of rent control legislation, on account of declaration of law by the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s. Vita about non-applicability of rent laws, the authority to occupy the public premises can be withdrawn without citing any reason and it is not necessary for the public authority to establish any valid reason for withdrawal of such authority. An entity occupying public premises in respect of which rent control protection is inapplicable and in respect of which authority to occupy has expired or has been determined, cannot remain in occupation of public premises and must vacate the same. While a private landlord may have to file a suit for eviction under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act,1882 for eviction of excluded entities under Section 3(1)(b) of the MRC Act, for government authority swifter mechanism in the form of Public Premises Act is created for ensuring faster eviction from public premises”.

Advocate P.S. Colabawala appeared for the petitioners and Senior Advocate Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar appeared for the respondent.

The petitioners challenged the City Civil Court’s judgments dated January 23, 2014, which confirmed the Estate Officer’s eviction orders of April 15, 2013 under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The premises had been occupied by the group since before the RBI bought the building in 1947. Consent terms in 1961 had barred the RBI from seeking eviction on bona fide requirement under the Bombay Rent Act, and the petitioners had agreed to find alternate premises. The RBI terminated the tenancy in 2009 and sought eviction citing security reports dated February 28, 2002 and January 20, 2005, which recommended shifting non-RBI occupants.

The petitioners argued that the show cause notice rested on stale reports, that the reports were inadmissible as their authors were not examined, that reasons had to be cited and proved under Section 2(g), and that government guidelines of May 30, 2002 barred eviction for commercial motives. The RBI argued that the findings were concurrent and that no ground need be shown.

The Court held that an Estate Officer needs only “information” under Section 4 and need not record an opinion. It said delay in acting on the reports did not make the proposal void, and noted a third report in 2010. On evidence, it held that an RBI officer could prove the reports, that this “is not a criminal trial to apply strict rules of evidence,” and that the occupants could cross-examine the RBI on its threat perception but not seek to disprove the agencies’ findings. It added that a contrary reading would put public premises “on a higher pedestal” than private premises occupied by entities excluded under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It also held that the guidelines have no statutory force and that there was no commercial motive.

The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs. The Court observed that the petitioners had occupied the premises for 13 years after the eviction order, and that “time has come for them to vacate.” On the petitioners’ request, interim protection in force since March 6, 2014 was continued for four weeks over the RBI’s opposition.

Cause Title: Munjee Nathoobhoy & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India and another (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:43529)

Appearances:

Petitioners: P.S. Colabawala, Samkit Shah, Farhad Vakil, instructed by Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe.

Respondent: Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, Parag Sharma, Aditi Pathak, Megha More, Twinkle Kalla and Juhi Bhayani, instructed by BLAC Co.

Click here to read/download the Judgment 


Tags: