occupy the tenement in question despite several orders being passed against them to vacate the tenement. It also appears that this is a case where the respondent nos. 3 to 8 have misused identity of the husband of the petitioner to get into the tenement in question. This cannot happen unless at the relevant time these respondents had an illegal protection of the officers from the department of Controller of Accommodation. It is also clear from the eviction order that respondent nos. 3 to 8 are not asserting possession of the tenement in their own legal capacity as legal and bona fide allottee of the State Government. In fact, it appears that they have put up a fraudulent claim of being legal heirs of Mr. Shankar Sayaji Kamble, husband of the petitioner. In these circumstances, respondent nos. 1 and 2 ought to have taken the eviction proceeding to its logical conclusion and more particularly, the notice which was issued on respondent nos. 3 to 8 on 29 January 2020. In the facts of the case, it needs to be presumed that there is gross illegality on the part of respondent nos. 3 to 8 to remain in occupation of a tenement in a prime locality in the city where the rent is very high, however, at the cost of public exchequer, respondent nos. 3 to 8 under an implicit protection from the Controller of Accommodation appears to be enjoying the
