Judgment

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against judgment dated 6th February, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1552 of 2000. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 and held as follows:

11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioner having acted on the agreement of sale and having paid the entire consideration was clearly not an unauthorized occupant within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act. That being so, there is no justification for applying the summary procedure under the Public Premises Act, nor has the Estate Officer any authority or jurisdiction to evict the Petitioner Under Section 5(2) of the Public Premises Act. There seems to be serious dispute about the title which dispute cannot be resolved under Public Premises Act. In our opinion, the invocation of the provisions of the Public Premises Act in the present case was wholly improper. The Estate Officer without any application of mind issued directions for putting locks and seals on the premises. In our opinion, due