An eviction order survives additional grounds where unauthorized subletting was specified in the show-cause notice.

MIDC issued a show-cause notice under Section 4(2) of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, alleging unauthorised subletting and failure to execute a lease deed after transfer of the premises.

It later passed an eviction order under Section 4.

The petitioner appealed under Section 7; the Principal District Judge, Thane, dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction.

The petitioner then challenged that decision and the eviction proceedings under Article 227, arguing, among other things, that the eviction order went beyond the notice and that its reply had not been considered.

The High Court noted that the petitioner’s reply referred to a pending writ petition but did not answer the subletting allegation, and that the reply had not been raised before the Trial Court.

1. Whether the eviction order was invalid because it included grounds beyond those stated in the show-cause notice.

2. Whether the eviction proceedings violated natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner’s reply or afford an opportunity to be heard.

3. Whether the Trial Court’s decision warranted interference under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

Section 4 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 requires the competent authority to issue a notice specifying the proposed grounds for eviction and calling on affected persons to show cause before making an eviction order; Section 7 provides an appeal against such an order.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction: interference is warranted for grave dereliction, flagrant abuse, or unreasonable or perverse findings, not merely to reappreciate evidence.

Applying State of Maharashtra v. Babulal Kriparam Takkamore, the Court stated that an order based on multiple grounds is not invalid merely because an additional ground is irrelevant or unsupported if another relevant ground independently sustains the result.

It also relied on Garment Craft v. Prakash Chandra Goel for the limits on reweighing facts under Article 227.

The Court found that unauthorised subletting was alleged in both the show-cause notice and the eviction order, so the order did not travel beyond the notice in respect of the operative ground.

It held that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to respond; the reply relied on did not address the subletting allegation, and the petitioner had not raised its non-consideration before the Trial Court.

The Court therefore found no denial of natural justice.

Given the surviving subletting ground and the absence of a perverse or arbitrary finding, the Trial Court’s decision did not warrant correction under Article 227.

It made no order as to costs.

The judgment’s concluding sentence also states that “Rule is made absolute,” notwithstanding its dismissal of the petition.