JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following prayers:- “8(a) Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions to quash and set aside the eviction notice dated 30th June 2018; (b) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions restraining the respondents from undertaking the proposed redevelopment under the ‘Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme-2016’ (c)…… (d)…… (e)……. (f)……. (g) that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the notice dated 03.12.2018 bearing no.6629/6 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, South East Zone (Limbayat), Surat Municipal Corporation; (h)…… (k) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/ or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the communication dated 04/06/2021 bearing no.S.E.Z./Tec/222/55 (Annexure-W) issued by the Asst. Commissioner, Surat East Zone (Limbayat), Surat Municipal Corporation.” 3. Thus, the petitioners are seeking a direction quashing and setting aside the eviction notice dated 30.06.2018 and restraining the respondent from undertaking the proposed re-development under the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme, 2016. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that they are occupying the said properties since last 35 years, for which notice of eviction has been issued. All the petitioners are having their shops/offices at building i.e. Babasaheb Ambedkar Shopping Centre, which is required to be acquired under the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme, 2016 issued by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar. 4.1. The subject building viz. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Shopping Centre (“Ambedkar Shopping Centre”) is a Ground + 3 storeyed structure, constructed by the Surat Municipal Corporation (S.M.C.) in around 1980, with a view to develop business in Surat. 4.2. On 13th November 2017, the petitioners received a notice from the Assistant Commissioner, Surat East Zone, S.M.C., calling upon them to vacate and handover possession of their respective premises within ten days i.e. on or before 23rd November 2017. On this issue, the Assistant Commissioner called for a hearing on 20th November 2017. 4.2. On 13th November 2017, the petitioners received a notice from the Assistant Commissioner, Surat East Zone, S.M.C., calling upon them to vacate and handover possession of their respective premises within ten days i.e. on or before 23rd November 2017. On this issue, the Assistant Commissioner called for a hearing on 20th November 2017. Along with the said notice, on 13th November 2017, the petitioners were also separately served with an undated caveat filed by SMC before this Court regarding the subject matter. 4.3. On 20th November 2017, the petitioners remained present in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, S.M.C. It is the case of the petitioners that at that time, they were informed that the notice dated 13th November 2017 was wrongly issued and as per further directions from the Deputy Commissioner (Limbayat Zone), the redevelopment scheme will be kept in abeyance. This was also confirmed in writing by the Assistant Commissioner, in his letter dated 27th November 2017 addressed to the petitioners. 4.4. Thereafter, the petitioners addressed a letter dated 08.03.2018 to the Assistant Commissioner, SMC once again requesting for necessary details regarding the proposed redevelopment. There were further communications written by the petitioners. Ultimately, the petitioners are issued the notice for eviction in view of the exercise undertaken by the respondent-Corporation for initiating the procedure of re-development of the said shopping centre. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are occupying the aforesaid premises in view of the lease deed entered by them with the respondent-Corporation in the year 1991 and they are continuously occupying such offices/shops and are also regularly paying the rent and hence, the respondent-Corporation may be restrained from implementing the redevelopment scheme in such shopping complex. He has further placed reliance on the redevelop scheme of the respondent-Corporation and has submitted that as per the provisions of the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme, 2016, more particularly paragraph no.2.2 and 2.3, such public housing scheme will not include the shopping commercial activities and is only confined to the housing or dwelling unites. He has submitted that the request of the respondent-Corporation is only that they may be given the benefit as per the scheme, however, instead of accepting or giving such benefits, the respondent-Corporation has chosen to evict them. He has submitted that the request of the respondent-Corporation is only that they may be given the benefit as per the scheme, however, instead of accepting or giving such benefits, the respondent-Corporation has chosen to evict them. He has placed reliance on various clauses in this regard, more particularly clause-6, which stipulates to the beneficiaries and allotment. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala has further placed reliance on the resolution passed by the respondent-Corporation and has submitted that in fact as per the resolution passed by the respondent-Corporation, only residential houses, which are behind Ambedkar Shopping Centre, were considered for redevelopment and while passing the aforesaid resolution, there is no mention about the shopping complex, in which the petitioners are having their shops or offices. He has further submitted that the respondent-Corporation has initiated the action with regard to their eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) without affording any notice or hearing and hence, such action is required to be set aside. 7. In the alternative, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjanwala has submitted that in case the petitioners are relegated to approach the concerned authority under the Act, the interim relief granted by this Court may be extended. 8. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Desai appearing for the respondent-Corporation has submitted that in fact all the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the Ambedkar Shopping Centre since out of 117 shops/offices, 29 offices are in possession of the SMC, while 88 shops/offices were given on rent to carry out commercial activities. It is submitted that the entire scheme was built in the year 1978 and it is in dilapidated condition. He has submitted that vide resolution dated 26.04.2016, the general body of the Corporation decided to redevelop the tenement scheme owned by the Corporation, including the scheme in question i.e. Man Darwaja Tenement Scheme and hence, the Corporation had initiated such action. It is submitted that in the T.P. Scheme no.7 (Anjana), there is land bearing Final Plot No.188, which entirely belongs to the SMC in the Town Planning Scheme and the area consisting of 41,310 sq. meters there is Man Darwaja Tenement Scheme, in which the Ambedkar Shopping Centre is situated. It is submitted that in the T.P. Scheme no.7 (Anjana), there is land bearing Final Plot No.188, which entirely belongs to the SMC in the Town Planning Scheme and the area consisting of 41,310 sq. meters there is Man Darwaja Tenement Scheme, in which the Ambedkar Shopping Centre is situated. It is further submitted that despite the lease deed having being expired long back, the petitioners have continued to occupy the aforesaid offices or shops. 9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai has submitted that the association of the petitioners were also heard by the respondent-Corporation. It is submitted that all the petitioners continue to occupy the shops and offices even though the lease agreement is over. It is submitted that total 77% of the occupiers have agreed for re-development. It is submitted that the corporation has issued the notices on 13.11.2017 to the occupiers of shops and offices and thereafter, the petition was filed by the petitioners. 9.1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai has further invited the attention of this Court to the Minutes of Meeting, which was held between the petitioners and the respondent-Corporation with regard to the issue. He has submitted that the contention raised by the petitioners that they were not given any public notice under the Act is absolutely ill-conceived since all the petitioners have been issued the notices, pursuant to which they were also heard and meetings were also taken place, however, they have not vacated the premises. 10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Desai has submitted that the as per Section 9 of the Act, the petitioners have an remedy to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of the State Officer and hence, the present writ petition may not be entertained. It is submitted that the Appellate Officer will hear all the concerned parties. It is submitted that the respondent-Corporation was constrained to issue notices since out of 88 occupiers, as many as 80 occupiers, the license period is already expired and the same is not renewed by the authority and hence, they are occupying the premises illegally. It is submitted that the authority has issued notices and also passed detailed reasoned orders under the Act on 21st May, 2021 and on 4th June, 2021 and also sought police protection for eviction. It is submitted that the authority has issued notices and also passed detailed reasoned orders under the Act on 21st May, 2021 and on 4th June, 2021 and also sought police protection for eviction. It is further submitted that the provisions of the redevelopment scheme are equally applicable to the shopping complex, as it falls within the provisions of the scheme. It is submitted that this Court in the case of Rashmikaben Vikramkumar Patel vs. Gujarat Housing Board, 2019 (1) GLH 552 , has upheld the validity and constitutionality of the scheme. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioners have no right of the properties and they are illegally occupying the same and in these circumstances, this Court may not issue any direction against the respondent-Corporation since 7 years have passed and because of the stay operating against the Corporation, no action under the scheme has been taken. 11. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and the relevant documents pointed out by them are also perused. 12. The entire writ petition of the writ petitioners hinges on the exercise undertaken by the respondent-Corporation for re-development of the properties at Final Plot no.188 of T.P. Scheme no.7 (Anjana), which consists of residential as well as commercial premises. It is not in dispute and it is an admitted fact that the said plot belongs to the respondent-Corporation. 13. As per the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme, 2016, the respondent-Corporation passed a resolution on 26.04.2016 for the redevelopment the tenements in the area of 41,310 sq. meters, which is known as Man Darwaja Tenement Scheme. There are 1312 tenements, primary school, fire station with staff quarters and Ambedkar Shopping Centre consist of 117 shops/offices, where the petitioners are carrying out their commercial activities. It is also not in dispute that the entire scheme was built in the year 1978. The Corporation has asserted that it is in dilapidated condition, whereas the petitioners are disputing the same. 14. From the documents on record, it is revealed that the entire Man Darwaja Tenement Scheme is on the plot, which is reserved by the SMC in the Town Planning Scheme. The Ambedkar Shopping Centre is also forming Man Darwaja Tenement Scheme. It is also established on record that 77% of the residential owners have already agreed for the redevelopment also and have been consented in writing. The Ambedkar Shopping Centre is also forming Man Darwaja Tenement Scheme. It is also established on record that 77% of the residential owners have already agreed for the redevelopment also and have been consented in writing. The Man Darwaja Tenement Scheme, cannot be considered in isolation for the purpose of redevelopment scheme since the Ambedkar Shopping Centre is integrated group of housing scheme, which includes Ambedkar Shopping Centre also. The record also reveals that out of 117 shops/offices of Ambedkar Shopping Centre, 29 offices are in possession of the SMC, while 88 shops/offices were given on lease to carry out commercial activities in the year 1991. The lease deed produced by the petitioners indicates that the period of lease was form on 01.08.1991 to 31.04.1996. The respondent-Corporation have specifically contended that despite the period of lease being over, the petitioners have continued to occupy the aforesaid premises without any authority. 15. It is also not in dispute that all the occupiers of such offices were also called for by the SMC and they were also heard by them. The petitioners have entered into rent agreement with the conditioned mentioned therein and such rent agreements are renewed from time to time, until the redevelopment scheme was introduced by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat in the year 2016. Despite the period of lease agreement being over in the year 1996, the occupants/holders of shops/offices have continued in possession of 88 premises, which constrained the respondent-Corporation to issue notices to them. It is also contended by the respondent-Corporation that out of six occupants, some of the occupants have not paid rent to the Corporation. 16. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot delve into the fact whether the complex is in dilapidated condition or not and such aspect has to be verified by the respondent authority and it is in their entire discretion and expertise to hold whether a particular property is in dilapidated condition or not and whether such property can be encompassed in the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme, 2016, which was introduced vide resolution dated 11.02.2016 issued by the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat. The scheme introduced by the State Government applies to those public housing premises, whose tenure is more than 20 years and accordingly, the Corporation vide resolution dated 26.04.2016 resolved to include land, area of tenement being scheme Man Darwaja Tenement Scheme under the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme, 2016. The sub-regulation (2.3) of regulation 2 of Redevelopment of Public Houses (Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme), 2016 specifically mandates that the public housing scheme which is older than 20 years or in dilapidated conditions will be eligible for redevelopment under this policy. Regulation 6 of such police reads as under:- “6 Beneficiaries and Allotment., 6.1. Owners of the houses in the existing housing scheme will be the beneficiaries of the redevelopment component. 6.2. The existing owners should not have any outstanding dues to the implementing agency at the time of getting possession. 6.3. Inhabitants staying on rental basis will not be considered for free allotment for redevelopment. However, subject to income criteria, they may be given preference for allotment from additional affordable housing stock on payment basis. 6.4. The existing houses will be redeveloped and beneficiaries will be rehabilitated in-situ. 6.5. The housing units of redevelopment and affordable housing will be allotted under the supervision of implementing agency as per guiding principles of allotment of houses issued by the department.” 17. The respondent-Corporation had also undertaken necessary consultation with all the stake holders, including the occupants of service society as well as the petitioners, however, since the premises was not evicted, no alternative was left with the Corporation but to invoke powers under the provisions of the Act and accordingly, statutory notices in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4 or 5 under the Act, were issued to such occupants. A personal hearing was also afforded by the Assistant Commissioner, South East Zone (Limbayat) on 20.11.2017 pursuant to the statutory notices issued on 13.11.2017. On 30.06.2018, the competent authority of the respondent-Corporation issued a show cause notice on 30.06.2018 to the members of the society calling upon them to evict the premises in question within a period of 10 days. Accordingly, the petitioners directly approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 18. After undertaking necessary procedure, since the petitioners did not adhere to the notices, the respondent authority passed an order dated 03.12.2018 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioners directly approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 18. After undertaking necessary procedure, since the petitioners did not adhere to the notices, the respondent authority passed an order dated 03.12.2018 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 of the Act. Vide communication dated 19.12.2018, such tenants were also called upon for personal hearings on 24.11.2018 and 13.01.2019 and accordingly, a detailed reasoned order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5(2) of the Act, was passed on 04.06.2021. 19. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are having an alternative statutory remedy to prefer an appeal in exercise of powers available under Section 9 of the Act. The authorities have acted as per the clauses of the rent agreements, which have been entered between different petitioners. It is also the case of the respondent authorities that out of 88 units, 33 units are used and occupied by sub-tenants are in complete violation of clause 6 and clause 22 of the terms and conditions of the rent agreement. 20. Thus, this Court, while exercising powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot examine all these rent agreements entered upon with the different petitioners and whether such units have been further occupied and given to the sub-tenants in violation of the rent agreements. Appropriate authority would be the Appellate Authority under the Act, which can examine all these facts as well as the clauses of the rent agreements. 21. In this view of the matter and the foregoing reasons and analysis, the writ petition fails. Rule is discharged. 22. At this stage, learned Senior advocate Mr. Sanjanwala has requested for extension of interim relief. The same is rejected in view of aforementioned reasons. 23. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, no order is passed in civil applications. Hence, the civil applications stand disposed of accordingly.