Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: Eviction Order Upheld Against Railway Premises Occupant

Updated
Oct 19, 2025 10:36 PM
News Image

Summary: The Bombay High Court has dismissed petitions concerning the eviction of Shivmoori Jagatdev Kushwaha from railway premises at Mumbai CST. The court upheld the eviction order, stating Kushwaha was not supposed to be there without permission.

Background of the Case

Shivmoori Jagatdev Kushwaha, a partner at M/s. Stuti Enterprises, was running a business at Mumbai CST under an agreement with the Mumbai Central Railway Employees Consumer Co-operative Society. This society was given the premises to provide consumer services according to Central Government policy.

The Beginning of the Dispute

In 2009, Kushwaha won a bid to operate from the premises for five years. However, in 2012, the society was considered financially unstable and was ordered to close down, with someone appointed to handle its closure. Despite this, a second agreement allowed Kushwaha to continue until 2019.

The Eviction Notices

In 2015, the railway authorities sent a notice under the Public Premises Act, demanding Kushwaha leave the premises. This led to a series of legal battles, with the Estate Officer ordering eviction and damages of over Rs. 1.25 crores for staying there without permission.

"The subject premises were unauthorizedly sublet to Shivmoori Kushwaha...required for development of the area for tourism by the railway administration."

Court Battles and Judgements

Kushwaha challenged the eviction orders multiple times. The Principal Judge of the City Civil Court eventually upheld the eviction but reduced the damages to Rs. 3,125 per month, citing valuation discrepancies.

The Final Verdict

Judge N.J. Jamadar dismissed the petitions, confirming Kushwaha didn’t have the right to stay on the premises. The court noted that the agreements with the society did not bind the Railways, emphasizing that Kushwaha’s stay there was not authorized.

Arguments and Legal Points

  • Unauthorized Occupancy: The court ruled that Kushwaha was not allowed to stay on the premises beyond the agreement terms.
  • Public Premises Act: The premises were considered government land, making the Public Premises Act applicable.
  • Legal Procedures: Despite procedural objections raised by Kushwaha, the court found no merit in claims of bias or defective notices.

Summary of the Verdict

The court decided that Kushwaha had no right to stay on the railway premises and had to leave. The court also allowed him a temporary period of four weeks to comply with the order without creating third-party interests.