As per case facts, a group of appeals challenged eviction orders issued under the AAI Act against employees of Air India Airport Services Ltd. who claimed authorized occupation of airport ...
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9089 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16069 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2025
Lokesh Ramnath Ramgude,
age : 55 years, Occupation : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.06-A, Building No.09,
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1196 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2025
Ashok Ramesh Bohat
age : 53 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
SQ Pathan 1/39
SHAGUFTA
QUTBUDDIN
PATHAN
Digitally signed
by SHAGUFTA
QUTBUDDIN
PATHAN
Date:
2026.03.09
17:44:49
+0530
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Flat No.12-A, 1
st
Floor, Building No.9,
Indian Air Lines, 2
nd
Housing Colony,
Kalina, Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1195 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2025
Bhimrao Mahadeo Chavan
age : 51 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.3/A, 1
st
�oor, Building No.40,
Air India 1
st
Housing Colony,
[Old Air India Housing Colony], Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
SQ Pathan 2/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1201 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2025
Vinay Kumar Choudhary
age : 45 years, Occ: Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.12/C, 2
nd
Floor, Building No.2CC,
Eviction Case No.228 of 2023
Residence-Indian Air Lines, 2
nd
Housing Colony,
Kalina, Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16079 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2025
Sunita Ashok Gaikwad
age : 56 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
SQ Pathan 3/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Eviction Case No.75 of 2023
Flat No.29-B, Building No.04,
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16072 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2025
Avinash Bhimrao Sonawane
age : 53 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.09, Building No.15,
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
SQ Pathan 4/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16076 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2025
Arun Shinde
age : 57 years, Occ: Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.24, Building No.03,
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16070 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2025
Ranvir Ghogaliya
age : 55 years, Occ: Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No.50 of 2023
SQ Pathan 5/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Flat No.1, Building No.1,
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16068 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2025
Vidyanand Jaiwantrao Chikhalikar
age : 47 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 48 of 2023
Flat No.11-B, Building No.15,
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
SQ Pathan 6/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16078 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2025
Rakesh Gohain
age : 56 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 64 of 2023
Flat No.47, Building No.05,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16082 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2025
Suryakant C. Shikare
age : 50 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
SQ Pathan 7/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Eviction Case No. 74 of 2023
Flat No.06-A, Building No.09,
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16083 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2025
C. M. Sonawane
age : 56 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.25, Building No.16,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
SQ Pathan 8/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16075 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2025
Karnal Nersingrao
age : 60 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.8, Building No.20B,
Indian Air India Colony, Kalina,
Eviction Case No. 308 of 2023
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16074 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2025
Sunil Maruti Pote
age : 52 years, Occ: Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 57 of 2023
SQ Pathan 9/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Flat No.108, Building NoA,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16081 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2025
Bhupendra D. Worlikar
age : 56 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.08-A, Building No.1,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
SQ Pathan 10/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16073 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2025
S. P. Salunke
age : 57 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 259 of 2023
Flat No.2-A, Building No.06,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 470 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16080 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 470 OF 2025
Harish Karbhari Deshmukh
age : 53 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
SQ Pathan 11/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Flat No.8, Building No.01,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.951 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2025
Ravindra Dhondiba Gole
age : 55 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 269 of 2023
Flat No.7-A, Building No.17,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
SQ Pathan 12/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.939 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2025
Brijendra Singh Bidlan
age : 55 years, Occ: Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 240 of 2023
Flat No.7-A, Building No.02,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1200 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2025
S. L. Vanmala
age : 56 years, Occ: Air India Service,
SQ Pathan 13/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Flat No.3-A, Building No.5, 1
st
Floor,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2025
S. Raviraj Nayak
age : 53 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.11-A, Building No.44, 1
st
Floor,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
SQ Pathan 14/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1198 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2025
Arvind K. Jadhav
age : 55 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.3-A, Building No.3,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.980 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2025
SQ Pathan 15/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
K. K. Kohli
age : 48 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.8-A, Building No.5, 1
st
Floor,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.37654 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2025
Sudhakar N. Bhawar
age : 55 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.19-A, Building No.06,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
SQ Pathan 16/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.941 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2025
Rohini R. Vandakar
age : 42 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.1-B, Building No.44,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1193 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2025
SQ Pathan 17/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Ashok A. Kamble
age : 56 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.20-A, Building No.06,
Indian Airlines Colony, Kalina,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 247 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.953 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 247 OF 2025
S. R.Patil
age : 55 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.5-A, Building No.7,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029
...Appellant/
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O�cer Western Regional
O�ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099
SQ Pathan 18/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1
st
Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099
...Respondents
——————
Mr. Kishor Dhoke i/b Mr. Nitin Satpute for the Appellants/Applicants in all
matters
Ms. Shilpa Kapil for the Respondent No.1-AAI
Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate i/b Wadia Ghandy and Co., for the
Respondent No.2-Mumbai Airport.
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
RESERVED ON : 2
nd
FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 9
th
MARCH, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. The present group of appeals is �led under Section 28-K of the
Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (for short, “AAI Act”), challenging
the orders passed by the Eviction O�cer under Section 28-B of the AAI
Act directing the eviction of the Appellants from the subject airport
premises.
2. The Appellants in the present appeals are identically situated
as the Appellants in First Appeal No. 1843 of 2024 and connected
appeals, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 15
th
July,
2025 passed by this Court upholding the individual eviction orders. The
common judgment of 15
th
July, 2025 was challenged by way of SLP (C)
SQ Pathan 19/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
No 22724 of 2025, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide
order dated 30
th
November, 2025 and time was granted to handover
vacant possession of the residential premises up to 30
th
November
2025 upon �ling the undertaking to that e�ect with the Registrar of
this Court.
3. The present group of appeals challenge identical eviction
orders passed under the AAI Act by the Eviction O�cers. With consent,
First Appeal No. 631 of 2025 was taken as lead petition, and the facts
of the said case are referred to for factual clarity.
4. Vide impugned order dated 14
th
November, 2024, the Eviction
O�cer, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 28-B(1) and (2)
of the AAI Act, ordered eviction of the Appellant, who is an employee
of Air India Airport Services Ltd. (“AIASL”) and claims to be in
authorized occupation of the airport premises. The eviction orders
came to be passed upon the application �led by Respondent No. 1
contending that the Appellant is employee of AIASL and i s
unauthorised occupation of the airport premises. The application set
out the dis-investment process, the decision to permit the Air India
employees to stay in the residential colonies post disinvestment for a
period of 6 months or till the property is monetized, whichever is
earlier, the previous litigation between the parties and the orders
SQ Pathan 20/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
passed by Bombay High Court, Madras High Court and the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
5. Upon arriving at a satisfaction that su�cient cause is made out,
show cause notice dated 4
th
October 2023 was issued under the AAI
Act to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be passed.
The response of the Respondent No.1 therein, who is the Appellant
herein, was that the representative of all Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes Air India Employees had �led Criminal Writ Petition No. 5134 of
2022 before the Bombay High Court against illegal eviction, and a
criminal complaint registered as M.A. SC/ST Case No. 1091 of 2023
against various persons, before the Hon’ble Special Court City Sessions
Court, Mumbai established under Section 14(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short, “SC/ST Act”). The contention was that Section 15-A(8)(c) of the
SC/ST Act restrained the Respondents from the act of eviction and that
the Air India Employees had entered into an agreement with
Respondent No. 2- AAI, for implementation of the reservation policies.
The locus of Respondent No 1 was questioned and there was denial to
the grounds of eviction.
6. The counter of the Respondent No. 1 inter alia stated that it is
neither a party to the criminal writ petition nor to the criminal
SQ Pathan 21/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
complaint and that there are no orders granting stay to the present
eviction proceedings.
7. The issues which were framed by the Eviction O�cer reads as
under:
“(a) Whether Applicant can initiate Eviction proceedings under
chapter V-A of the AAI Act 1994,
(b) Whether the Ld. Eviction O�cer has jurisdiction to try,
entertain and decide the eviction proceedings initiated against
Respondent No. 1,
(c) Whether Respondent No. 1 proves that he/she is not in
unauthorized occupation of the subject premises as described in
the schedule of the Eviction Application �led by the Applicant ?
(d) What Order?
(e) What Costs?”
8. The issues were answered in favour of the Respondent No.1
herein, and eviction orders were passed. Hence, the present appeals.
9. Mr. Dhoke, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, would
submit that the AAI carried out the project of alleged disinvestment of
the airport site, Mumbai, through a tender �oated in the year 2002–
2003, in which G.V.K. Reddy was the lowest bidder, and an agreement
was executed between the AAI and G.V.K. Reddy on 26
th
April 2006 for
disinvestment of the airport site, which included the colony quarters.
SQ Pathan 22/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
He would submit that the Madras High Court had partially accepted the
demand by the Union therein, of the reservation for SC/ST/OBC
category employees in recruitment and promotion to be continued and
had observed that the bidder is obligated to use best endeavour for
the �rst year to provide adequate job opportunities to SC/ST persons.
He would further submit that the employees belonging to the
members of the SC/ST community �led interim application in the writ
petition before this Court challenging the disinvestment alleging
change of service rules, which came to be disposed of with liberty to
the applicants to �le a separate writ petition. He submits that
thereafter, the Air Corporation SC/ST Employees Association �led
Criminal Writ Petition No. 5134 of 2022, which is pending and it is
during the pendency of the criminal writ petition, that recoveries were
started against the employees, which led to �ling of police complaint
against the alleged illegal acts of the Secretary of Ministry of Civil
Aviation (`MOCA’) and o�cers of Air India Ltd. He would submit that
as there was inaction of police, the Air Corporation SC/ST Employees
Association �led a criminal case against Secretary of MOCA and two
o�cers of Air India Ltd., Mumbai, before the Hon’ble Special Court
established under Section 14(1) of the SC/ST Act, and in the said
proceeding, the AAI, MOCA through its Secretary, Air India Assets
Holding Company, and Commissioner of Police, were made parties. He
SQ Pathan 23/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
submits that during the pendency of the criminal writ petition before
this Court and the criminal complaint before the Special Court, the
Respondent No.1- MIAL initiated eviction proceedings, by reason of
which, application was �led against the Eviction O�cer, the Senior
Superintendent of Air India Ltd., and representative of MIAL. He
further submits that the question which arises before the Special Court
and the eviction proceedings is, as to who is the proper and valid
Eviction O�cer, under which Act i.e. PPE Act or AAI Act and as to
whether the reservation policies applicable to members of the SC/ST
employees are followed or not. He submits that the Eviction O�cer
has passed the �nal order, in which there is reference to Lease Deed
Agreement dated 26
th
April 2006 and supplementary Lease Deed
Agreement executed on 21
st
December 2012 i.e. alleged Lease Deeds
are in the name of G.V.K. Reddy and not between AAI and Adani Group
nor between MIAL and Adani Group. He would further submit that
after �nal eviction orders were issued by Eviction O�cer/AAI, MIAL
sealed 27 quarters along with household articles of employees in their
absence, and that some employees have thereafter vacated and some
appeals were withdrawn. He submits that the Air Corporation SC/ST
Employees Association has �led an application before the Special
Court to call for certain records and documents, which were directed to
be called for by the Special Court vide order dated 27
th
September
SQ Pathan 24/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
2024. He submits that the original and authenticated documents i.e.
Lease Deeds of 2006 and 2012 along with the map of alleged
disinvestment of Air India Airport, Mumbai, are required to be called
for e�ective adjudication. He submits that the contention of the
Respondent No. 1 is that they do not have these documents or that
they are con�dential documents.
10.Mr. Nankani, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the Respondent No. 2 would submit that the contentions raised by the
Appellant in the present case are covered by the judgment dated 15
th
July 2025 and the additional issues raised in the present case are as
regards the application of reservation policy. He submits that the
Appellant was allotted the subject premises upon entering into a leave
and license agreement in the form of an undertaking dated 21
st
August
2018 in accordance with the Air India Housing Allotment Rules. He
draws attention of this Court to the Rules and submits that the Rules
provide for the allotment by way of grant of license, and reservation
policy is applicable only at the time of allotment. He submits that the
housing colony lands were duly acquired by AAI and are airport
premises within the meaning of Chapter V-A of the AAI Act. He submits
that under OMDA, the Respondent No. 2 was obligated to ensure that
the airport land was handed over free from encumbrances, and that
SQ Pathan 25/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
pursuant to the execution of OMDA, the Lease Deed of 2006 and the
Supplementary Lease Deed of 2011 were executed, to which the
master plan of the entire demised land and carved out assets was
annexed. He submits that the housing colony lands were leased to
MIAL by virtue of the said Lease Deeds and Supplementary Lease Deed,
which makes speci�c reference to the housing colony lands.
11. He would further submit that contempt proceedings were �led
before Sessions Court in pending Criminal Misc. Application being
SC/ST No. 1901 of 2023, where neither the Eviction O�cer nor
representative of MIAL were originally made party to the criminal
applications and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Sessions
Court vide order dated 2
nd
February 2024. He submits that the
Sessions Court has held that the submission as regards the eviction
notice being served to cause harassment and humiliation to member of
the SC/ST community, is prima facie inconsiderable and unreliable and
that the order passed by various forums are applicable to all the
employees including SC/ST employees, who are not excluded in any
manner. He submits that the Association has �led an application
before the Hon’ble Sessions Court to restrain the implementation of
the eviction orders passed by the Eviction O�cer, which application
has been rejected by the Sessions Court. He submits that the Hon’ble
SQ Pathan 26/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
Sessions Court has observed that the issue concerning accommodation
has also been addressed by the High Court and the Apex Court and
would apply to all employees, including those of the Association, and
has therefore rejected the application. He submits that the �nding of
the Hon’ble Sessions Court is that no prohibitory order could be issued.
12.He would submit that insofar as the Interim Application �led by
the Appellants are concerned, seeking production of the Lease Deed
and Supplementary Lease Deed, an a�davit-in-reply has been �led
clearly recording that notarized copy of the Lease Deed a nd
Supplementary Lease Deed both executed between the AAI and MIAL
are part of the eviction application. He would further submit that the
provisions of the SC/ST Act do not apply as MIAL has taken action
against all occupants without any discrimination and there is no caste
based discriminatory action. He submits that the Appellants do not
enjoy any special rights to continue in occupation on account of their
status as SC/ST as contended and that the reservation policy applies
only at the time of allotment. He submits that the Appellants are mere
licensees and are bound to vacate upon determination of the license.
13. The points arising for determination :
(a) Whether the eviction orders passed under the AAI
Act deserves interference ?
SQ Pathan 27/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
(b) Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings would bar
the eviction of the employees upon being found to be in
unauthorised occupation ?
14.In the earlier group of Appeals, the Court framed the following
points for determination:
“1. Whether upon execution of OMDA on 4
th
April, 2006, the housing
colony lands and the super structures constructed thereon were
demised by Airports Authority of India in favour of Applicant under the
Lease Deed dated 26th April, 2006 and Supplemental Lease deed
dated 21
st
December, 2011?
2. Whether upon dis-investment of Air India Limited, the housing
colony lands and/or the super structure stand transferred to AIAHCL?
3. Whether the residential accommodation constitutes Airp ort
premises giving jurisdiction to the Eviction O�cer under the AAI Act
and not the Estate O�cer under PPE Act?
4. Whether the license granted by Air India Limited to the employees in
respect of the housing accommodation has been terminated by Air
India Limited?
5. Whether the action of eviction could be initiated only at the instance
of Air India/AIESEL and not by Applicant or Airports Authority of India?
6. Whether AIAHCL, Air India Limited/ AIESL/ AIATSL are necessary
parties to the proceedings?
SQ Pathan 28/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
7. Whether Respondent No.1-employees are unauthorised occupants
of the airport premises?
15. The �ndings on the issues were summarised in the concluding
paragraph 67 of the judgment dated 15
th
July, 2025, as under:
“(a) The lands on which the housing colonies are located are owned by
Airport Authority of India and constitute airport premises under
Section 28-A of AAI Act.
(b) The lease hold rights in the housing colony lands stand
transferred to Mumbai International Airport Ltd upon disinvestment
of Air India Ltd. As the housing colonies constructed on the airport
land yield to the lessor on disinvestment, the same constitutes airport
premises. In any event AIAHCL has handed over the possession of the
housing colonies to Mumbai International Airports Ltd.
(c) The housing accommodation facility advanced by Air India Ltd to its
employees stood withdrawn and leave and license stood terminated
and time was given by the Hon'ble Division Bench to vacate the
premises by 24
th
September, 2022.
(d) No right in the housing colonies lands or the housing colonies
remained with Air India Ltd upon disinvestment and no such right can
be claimed by its employees.
(e) As the subject lands and housing colonies constitute airport
premises and are required for purpose of airport, it is the AAI Act
which will be applicable and not PPE Act.”
SQ Pathan 29/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
16.The �ndings of this Court passed in respect of identically
situated employees vide judgment dated 15
th
July, 2025 have attained
�nality upon dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Mr. Dhoke
has raised the issue of jurisdiction of the Eviction O�cer, the locus of
Respondent No. 2-MIAL to initiate eviction proceedings and the
premises not being airport premises, which issues stand concluded by
the judgment dated 15
th
July, 2025. As this Court has already upheld
the jurisdiction of Eviction o�cer, the locus of MIAL and the premises
being airport premises, the same �ndings cover the issues in present
case as it is not shown that the employees situated herein are not
identically situated.
17.The additional contentions raised in the present group of
Appeals is as regards the impact of the status of the Appellants as
members of the SC/ST community on the eviction proceedings and the
eviction orders are claimed to be in violation of the rights of the
Appellants who belong to SC/ST status. The right to continue in the
residential accommodation is premised broadly on (a) order of Madras
High Court which partially accepted the demand of reservation of
SC/ST/OBC category employees in recruitment and promotion (b) the
pendency of Criminal Writ Petition No 5134 of 2022, Criminal M.A.
SC&ST/ 1091 of 2023, contempt application under Section 15A(8) (c) of
SQ Pathan 30/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
SC/ST Act, and, (c) reservation policy under Article 16(4) of
Constitution of India.
18.The Eviction O�cer has considered the submissions on the
applicability of SC/ST Act and has recorded its �ndings in paragraph 42,
45 and 46 as under:
“42. I have noted Mr. Dhokes submissions on the SC/ST POA Act.
Section 3(1)(z) of the SC/ST POA Act provides that any person who
"forces or causes a member of Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe
to leave his house, village or other place of residence" shall be
punishable with imprisonment or �ne as set out in the SC/ST POA
Act. In the present case, the premises in question were allotted to
Respondent No. 1 on license basis by his employer i.e. Air India by
virtue of his employment. As such, Respondent No. 1 does not have
any separate or exclusive right in respect of the subject Airport
Premises and at best can claim only through Air India. The
Government of India in the AISAM decision dated 29
th
September,
2021 which was communicated to all employees called upon all
employees to vacate the housing colony accommodations within 6
months of disinvestment. At this stage no special provision was
made in respect of employees belonging to the SC/ST Community.
Upon its disinvestment Air India's right in the Housing Colonies
stood extinguished. Air India's decision to call upon employees to
vacate the housing colony accommodations was challenged by
various Unions before the Hon'ble Madras High Court as well as the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court. All these orders have been placed on
record and have been perused by me. None of these orders make
any exception in respect of employees belonging to SC/ST
community. This being the case, I am inclined to dismiss the
Representation made by Respondent No. 1 that the evict ion
application should be rejected or kept in abeyance till the hearing
SQ Pathan 31/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
of various criminal proceedings �led by one Air Corporation
Employees Association.
45. Notably Respondent No. I had �led an application under Section
15A(8)(c) for ad interim relief against the Respondents therein and
Contemnors for restraining them with interfering in any related or
unrelated pending matters without prior permission of the special
court and for initiating the contempt proceeding against the
Respondents therein and Contemnors. The Respondent No. I claims
that this o�ce was also impleaded as a Contemnor though no
papers and proceedings have been served on this o�ce. The
Hon'ble Sessions Court by an Order dated 2
nd
February, 2024
rejected the contempt petition as being devoid of merits. The
Hon'ble Court held that the submission of complainant that they
being members of SC and ST, and that the eviction notices are
served with an intention to cause harassment and humiliation to
them, are prima-facie inconsiderable, unappreciable and unreliable.
The Hon'ble Court held that the members of SC ST shall not have a
separate and independent distinct status to have the relief sought
by them and the orders passed by various forums are applicable to
all the employees including the SC/ST employees who were not
excluded in any manner.
46. The Applicant has followed due process of law by initiating
proceedings under Chapter V-A of the AAI Act. After issuance of
Show Cause Notice ample opportunity was granted to the
Respondent No. 1 to �le submissions and advance arguments.
Respondent No. I has availed of this opportunity and �led
submissions which have been duly considered. Therefore, the
allegation that there has been any violation of the Constitution of
India is unfounded and is rejected.”
19.It is not disputed that the allotment of accommodation was
under the Air India Housing Allotment Rules, 2017, which Rules are
SQ Pathan 32/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
framed for allotment of company residence by Air India. Rule 5 dealing
with the procedure for allotment provides that in case of housing
colony allotment, a list will be drawn up calling for options from
amongst eligible permanent employees and the employees will be
o�ered �ats as per their turn in the list. Rule 6 which deals with
reservation in the allotment of quarters for SC/ST employees provides
for percentage of reservation in the speci�c types of �ats. The Rules
would indicate that at the time of allotment of quarters, certain
percentage in speci�ed types of �ats were reserved for SC/ST
employees, who got preferential allotment. The said Rule cannot be
stretched to mean that once the residential accommodation is allotted
to SC/ST employees out of the reserved �ats, irrespective of whether
the license stands terminated or whether Air India Ltd itself stood
divested of any right in the residential accommodation, the allotment
continues in perpetuity by reason of reservation of �ats and the SC/ST
employee cannot be evicted even upon termination of the leave and
license agreement. Rule 20 provides that the allottees to whom
residence are allotted are only licensees. The Rules makes it evident
that the reservation criteria applied at the time of allotment of the
residential accommodation and upon termination of the leave and
license agreement, all employees who accepted the residential
accommodation under the leave and license agreement are bound to
SQ Pathan 33/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
vacate the premises. No right accrues to SC/ST employee in the
residential premises upon termination of leave and license agreement
under which allotment was made.
20.The reliance of Mr. Dhoke on the directions of the Madras High
Court in Writ Petition No 25568 of 2021 is clearly misplaced. The
direction of Madras High Court was in context of the demand raised for
reservation for SC/ST/OBC category employees in recruitment and
promotion and refers to the job opportunities. The direction cannot be
read to mean reservation and continued extension of the housing
accommodation to the employees of Air India who belong to the SC/ST
category.
21.As far as the pendency of criminal proceedings before this
Court and Sessions Court is concerned, the proceedings will take its
own course and does not impact the eviction orders passed under the
AAI Act. The copy of the Criminal Writ Petition No 5134 of 2022 is not
placed on record and search of the o�cial website of the Court
indicates that the Petition was dismissed for non prosecution. Having
upheld the jurisdiction of the Eviction O�cer under the AAI Act, the
pendency of the criminal proceedings is immaterial consideration while
deciding the validity of the eviction order. Even considering the
Sessions Court proceedings, Mr. Nankani has placed on record the
SQ Pathan 34/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
order dated 2
nd
February, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Sessions Court in
application below Exhibit 5 in Criminal M.A. SC/ST No. 1091 of 2022,
which application was �led during the pendency of the eviction
proceedings. The Hon’ble Sessions Court considered the provisions of
the SC/ST Act as well as the past litigation and orders passed by this
Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. It held that merely relying on the
provisions of Section 15-A(8)(c) of the SC/ST Act is inconsiderable and
inappreciable. It noted that the issue is concerning all the employees
and the SC/ST members have not been externed or excluded in any
manner and rejected the interim application. Subsequently, the
eviction orders came to be passed pursuant to which another
application was �led before the Sessions Court below Exhibit 37 under
Section 15-A(8)(c) of the SC/ST Act for the purpose of restraint against
the implementation of the �nal orders of eviction. The Hon’ble Special
Court declined to grant any prohibitory relief and dismissed and
disposed of the application. The Appellant made another attempt
before the Sessions Court to prohibit execution of the eviction
proceeding without permission of the Sessions Court. Vide order dated
25
th
October, 2024, the Sessions Court rejected the application. The
orders of the Hon’ble Sessions Court would indicate that the Sessions
Court has taken into consideration the fact that it is not only the
employees belonging to the SC/ST Caste who have been subjected to
SQ Pathan 35/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
the orders of eviction and that the same are passed against all the
employees. The dismissal of the application would itself indicate the
non-applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The order of Sessions Court is not
shown to have been challenged further. No assistance can, therefore,
be drawn by the Appellants from the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
22.The Appellants seeks to rely on the provisions of Section 3(1)(z)
of the SC/ST Act, to counter the eviction proceedings. Section 3 of the
SC/ST Act provides for punishment for o�ences for atrocities and
Section 3(1)(z) provides that forcing or causing a member of Schedule
Caste or a Schedule Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of
residence constitutes an o�ence. According to Appellant, by reason of
Section 3(1)(z), even after eviction orders are passed after following
due procedure of law, the SC/ST employees cannot be evicted from
their residence. The contention proceeds on complete misreading of
the said provision. The action of eviction being an action taken in
accordance with law cannot constitute an o�ence under Section 3(1)(z)
of SC/ST Act. Accepting the contention would lead to a consequence
that no member of SC/ST can ever be evicted from the premises
occupied by it, whether tenanted or owned or allotted even in
accordance with the procedure known to law. The same cannot be said
SQ Pathan 36/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
to be the import of Section 3(1)(z) of the SC/ST Act. The action of
eviction is initiated against all employees of Air India Ltd after the
disinvestment process without any discrimination and would not
amount to an o�ence committed against an employee by reason of
his/her caste. The Appellant being licensee are bound to vacate upon
termination of their license and no special rights accrue to the
Appellant by reason of their status as SC/ST.
23.Under Article 16(4) of Constitution of India, the State may make
provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in any backward
class of citizens, which in the opinion of State, is not adequately
represented in the services under the State. The reservation under
Article 16(4) has no relevance to the present case where after the
disinvestment process, the leave and license stands terminated and the
employees are required to vacate the allotted premises.
24.The decision to evict the Appellant is assailed as breach of
SC/ST Act. The said contention is devoid of merits. The action is taken
against all occupants of residential colonies without any discrimination.
It is not shown that the occupants belonging to SC/ST have been
selectively targeted. There is no question of the eviction orders being
in breach of SC/ST Act, which orders are passed after due process of
law. The caste of the Appellant is irrelevant in present context, where
SQ Pathan 37/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
all occupants are similarly situated as licensees of the residential
accommodation. The termination of the license’s amounts to all
occupants being rendered unauthorised occupants.
25.The other submission raised is that the Special Court vide order
dated 27
th
September 2024 has directed the Respondents to produce
the authenticated copy of the documents which has not been complied
with. The directions by the Special Court has no bearing to the facts of
present case which pertains to the validity of the eviction orders. In the
present First Appeal, an Interim Application has been �led in directing
the respondents to produce the Lease Deeds of 2006 and 2011 along
with copy of alleged disinvestment of Air India Airport. These
documents were already placed on record before the Eviction O�cer
and has been considered by this Court in the judgment dated 15
th
July
2025. This Court has considered the various clauses of OMDA dated 4
th
April 2006, the Lease Deed dated 26
th
April 2006 and the
Supplementary Lease Deed dated 21
st
December 2011. It is contended
by the respondent No.2 that these documents pertaining to the
privatization of Mumbai Airport are available on MOCA Website and
there was no inspection of the original papers sought by th e
Appellants. The contention that the agreements were not produced is
completely devoid of merits.
SQ Pathan 38/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
26.In light of the above �ndings, the Appeals are without merit
and stand dismissed. Interim Applications do not survive for
consideration and stand disposed of. Time of four weeks is granted to
the Appellants to vacate their respective premises.
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
SQ Pathan 39/39
Legal Notes
Add a Note....