Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Of Ex Air India Staff From Airport Premises
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by former employees of the national carrier, challenging their eviction from flats in the Kalina Housing Colony. The court upheld eviction orders previously issued by the Eviction Officer under the Airports Authority of India (AAI) Act, 1994, ruling definitively that the premises fall under the definition of “airport premises” as per the Act. This significant decision clarifies the jurisdictional authority for such matters, setting a precedent for properties situated on land designated for airport operations following major disinvestments.
A central issue in the appeals revolved around whether the eviction proceedings should be governed by the AAI Act or the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (PPE Act). Legal representatives for the former employees argued that their occupation was linked to employment and that their leave and license agreements had not been properly terminated, also questioning the ownership of the buildings after the national carrier’s privatization. However, the court found no merit in these arguments, noting that the land on which the colony stands has consistently belonged to the Airports Authority of India, having been leased to the national carrier in 1952.
Upon the national carrier’s disinvestment, the leasehold rights were transferred to the airport operator, which subsequently initiated the eviction proceedings. The court explicitly rejected the concept of “dual ownership,” stating that any structure built on leased land follows the fate of the lease, with all rights reverting to the lessor upon its determination. Judges clarified that even if a holding company had monetization rights, it did not equate to ownership over the buildings. The court also observed that the housing facility had been withdrawn, and agreements terminated through prior notices, granting a six-week stay on the order to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court.
This judgment clarifies jurisdictional complexities involving public land and disinvested entities, emphasizing the supremacy of specialized legislation for airport premises. It sets a significant legal precedent for property ownership and eviction procedures in similar cases, ensuring clarity in managing assets vital for national infrastructure development and efficient operations.
