MUMBAI: In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that tenancy rights under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 cannot be transferred through a will, reaffirming that such premises cannot be inherited or bequeathed outside the terms of tenancy.
The court upheld a 2008 eviction order issued against a woman occupying a 2,000-sq-ft flat in Queens Court, Churchgate, owned by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), dismissing her claim of being a legal tenant through a will left by the previous occupant.
LIC had appealed against a 2009 city civil court order that had set aside the eviction. The High Court, however, restored the estate officer’s decision, holding that the woman was in unauthorised possession since 1994.
Justice Gauri Godse observed, “If testamentary disposition of a public premises contrary to contract is permitted, the property could be bequeathed to a stranger, depriving natural heirs of support or sustenance.” The court ruled that the woman, though described as a “niece” in the will, could not claim tenancy rights, especially as she was not an immediate family member of the original tenant.
The original tenant of the LIC flat was a woman; after her death, her husband became the legal tenant. LIC records showed that in 1985, he had declared that no relatives lived with him, and in 1986, he had agreed not to sub-let or part with possession without prior LIC approval.
Following his death in 1994, LIC issued a termination notice in 1997, treating the woman’s continued stay as unauthorised. In 2008, the estate officer ordered her eviction and imposed damages of ₹2.4 lakh per month. A year later, a lower court quashed the order, leading LIC to approach the High Court.
Rejecting her reliance on the Transfer of Property Act and Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the court said protections under these laws do not extend to occupants of public premises. “The tenant’s legal heirs did not claim tenancy after his death. Hence, the woman cannot claim any right under the will,” the order stated.
However, on the plea of her counsel Haresh Jagtiani, the High Court granted a temporary eight-week stay on the eviction, subject to her undertaking not to create third-party interests, to pay the arrears of damages, and to vacate if the Supreme Court rules against her.
The ruling reinforces the Public Premises Act’s framework for the speedy eviction of unauthorised occupants from government-owned or institutional properties. In this case, the process stretched over nearly three decades — from the 1997 termination notice to the 2025 High Court verdict — underscoring both the complexity and longevity of tenancy disputes involving public properties.
