S. RADHAKR1SHNAN, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 waives service. The presence of respondent No. 2 is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of this petition, as he is a formal party.

( 2 ) THE basic challenge in the Petition is with regard to two orders passed by respondent No. 2-Estate Officer dated 26-8-2005 being Exhibit m and another order dated 12-1-2006 being Exhibit q to the petition. The petitioner also seeks inspection and better particulars. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a lawful monthly tenant of Flat No. B/27 on the 5th floor of the building known as Mayfair Gardens, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400 006, (hereinafter referred to as the said premises ). It appears that the petitioner was lawfully inducted in the said premises on 1st October, 1972 as a genuine lawful tenant. The petitioner has been regularly paying all the rent and permitted increases to respondent No. 1 which is a nationalised Insurance Company. Suddenly, the petitioner received a notice dated 9-2-2001 from respondent No. 1 terminating the monthly tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner by his letter dated 28th March, 2001 replied to the same. However, no further steps were taken by respondent No. 1. After about a year, on 18th February, 2002, the petitioner received another notice from respondent No. 1 again terminating the tenancy which was also replied to by the petitioner by his reply dated 27th march, 2002. It may be noted that even after issuance of the second termination notice dated 18th February, 2002, the respondent No. 1 did not take any further steps and the petitioner continued to pay the regular rent and other necessary charges which were duly accepted by respondent No. 1. On 28th July, 2003, i. e. about one and half year after the second termination notice, the respondent No. 2 - Estate Officer issued two show cause notices, one for eviction under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for brevity sake) and another under section 7 of the said Act for payment of damages. The petitioner had sent a detailed reply with regard to both the aforesaid show cause notices by his advocates letter dated 23rd February, 2004 reserving the right to challenge the constitutional validity of section 3 of the Public Premises Act before the Honble supreme Court. It appears that the petitioner did file a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Honble Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of section 3 of the Public Premises Act, wherein it appears that Rule was granted by the Honble Supreme Court on 10th September, 2004. In the said petition, the Honble Supreme Court had made it clear that the proceedings before the learned Estate Officer may go on but the final order in the matter be not passed. The petitioner without prejudice to the aforesaid petition, had filed his reply on 3-9-2004 to the application of respondent No. 1 dated 25-1- 2003 for eviction. The petitioner contends that the petitionei has been appearing before the respondent No. 2. The petitioner by his letter dated 7th March, 2005 appears to have called upon the respondent No. 1 to furnish inspection and better particulars of various documents relied upon by the respondent No. 1. In that behalf, a further reminder was sent on 18th June, 2005. It appears that at the hearing before the respondent No. 2 on 26th August, 2005 as the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not remain present before the respondent No. 2 Estate officer and a request was made that the matter be kept back for a little while as the learned Counsel of the petitioner was busy before the High Court. It appears that the respondent No. 2 had refused to keep back the matter and proceeded to pass an ex parte order directing the petitioner to