The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the landlord, as a State entity, to prove fairness and reasonableness in eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and the need for compliance with the principles of natural justice and constitutional obligations under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) WHO should begin to lead evidence in a proceeding under the public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short 'the Act ') is the question involved in these appeals.

( 3 ) APPELLANT is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1950. It is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India. It owns a building in the town of Mumbai commonly known as Mayfair Gardens. Respondents herein are the tenants occupying two apartments in the said building. We would notice the fact of each matter in brief separately.

( 4 ) IN this appeal a notice terminating the tenancy of first respondent was issued on 9th February, 2001. However, on the premise that no ground of eviction had been mentioned therein, another notice was issued on 18th February, 2002 enumerating the grounds of eviction. Replies were given thereto by the respondent. Appellant filed an application before the Estate Officer praying for eviction of the respondent and for damages for unauthorized occupation of the premises with effect from 1st April, 2002 @ rs. 4,91,700/- per month with interest @ 9 % per annum thereupon.

( 5 ) THE Estate Officer purported to be satisfied that the occupation of the first respondent is unauthorized and that an order of eviction may have been passed against it issued a show cause notice to respondent No. 1 on 28th July, 2003 under Section 4 of the Act. The grounds for first respondent 's eviction as set out in the application were :-

"1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. needs and requires the premises for its own use and occupation for accommodating its own senior executives ; 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is being evicted from tenanted premises and being called upon to pay exhorbitant rents for tenanted premises ; 3. Increase in business, globalization of economy and liberalization of policies have necessitated the New india Assurance Co. Ltd. to use and occupy the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. 's own properties ; 4. The tenancy of Respondent No. 1 has been duly terminated by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 's notice dated 18. 02. 2002; 5. Respondent No. 1 is a rich and wealthy industrialist who has several flats for his residence. "

( 6 ) NOTICE was also issued on the same date i. e. 28th July, 2003 under the provisions of Section 7 (3) of the Act calling upon the tenant-respondent to show cause why he should not be required to pay damages. Reply to the formal show cause notices were filed by the first respondent on 23rd February, 2004. A detailed written statement was filed by him on 3rd September, 2004.

( 7 ) UPON an application filed by the appellant, the Estate Officer by an order dated 26th August, 2005 directed the first respondent to lead evidence wherein his advocate was directed to file an affidavit of evidence. The matter was adjourned for cross-examination of the first respondent 's witnesses by the appellant 's advocate. First Respondent, however, filed an application before the Estate Officer praying inter alia that he should vary his order dated 26th August, 2005 and direct the appellant to lead its evidence first and offer its witnesses for cross-examination by the first respondent whereafter he would file his affidavit of evidence. The said application was rejected by the Estate officer by an order dated 12th January, 2006. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith the first respondent filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court which, by reason of the impugned judgment, has been allowed.

( 8 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was inducted as a licensee in a furnished flat in an apartment in the said building. The period of lease was for 5 years beginning from 1st October, 1994. Allegedly on the premise that the respondent No. 1 did not renew the 'licence ' by giving two months ' prior notice as required, a notice to quit and handover possession was issued on 13th December, 1999. In response to the said notice the respondents contended that