1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.

2] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the case culminating in the eviction order of the appellate authority dated 31st January 2007 and to quash and set aside the (I) Notice of Termination dated 10th/14th February 1995, (ii) the Notice of Eviction dated 19th April 1999 (iii) Order of 2nd respondent and (iv) the order of appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, dated 31st January 2007 in Misc.Appeal No.261 of 2001.

3] The proceedings are under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (for short PPE Act). The petitioner states that it was a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and continued to be so till the eviction order was passed by the Estate Officer (respondent No.2). It has its office on 9th floor Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai admeasuring 2645.40 sft. since 1st August 1975 and another office on 19th floor of the same building since 16th February 1979 admeasuring 10484.16 sft. The building belongs to Air India Limited – first respondent and these premises were allotted on leave and licence basis to the petitioner.

4] Equally, the first respondent is incorporated as Government Company under the same Act having its registered office at Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. It is the owner of the Building in which the premises allotted to the petitioners are situate.

5] A notice dated 10th/14th February 1995 was issued by the Respondent No.1 to the petitioner, terminating their rights to occupy their premises on the ground that they were required by Air India for its own use.

6] The letter of Termination dated 10th/14th February 1995 was replied to by the petitioner by its letter dated 23rd February 1995. From the said letter of termination dated 10th/14th February 1995 and the reply of the petitioners dated 23rd February 1995 it will be seen that ex facie there was a dispute regarding the service charges per sq.foot, which were payable by the petitioner to respondent No.1 and that the termination notice, which runs into several pages, does not even have a whisper of the ground of security. Based on this Notice of termination dated 10th/14th February 1995 given by respondent No.1, the second respondent's predecessor, one Shri Rokkala Ranga Rao, Assistant Director, Legal & Administration, as Estate Officer issued a Notice dated 3rd November 1995 under section 4 of the PPE Act. In the said Notice the Estate Officer rightly did not mention any ground of security as the basis on which he had formed the opinion that the petitioners should be evicted from the premises as the Termination Notice dated 10th/14th February 1995 did not contain a whisper regarding security. The said notice was replied to by the petitioners and no further proceedings took place before the Estate Officer, except for another show cause notice which was issued under section 7 of the said Act on 6th January 1996 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why it should not be asked to pay damages of a sum of Rs.1,91,16,637/-after setting off the sum of Rs.15,62,420/-being the licence fee and service charges paid by the petitioners as per the leave and licence agreement as shown in Schedule II for alleged unauthorised use and occupation of the premises from 1st April 1995 to 31st December 1995 at the rate of Rs.175/-per month.

7] Thereafter, the petitioners were shocked and surprised to receive another notice dated 19th april 1999 under section 4 of the said Act from another Estate Officer (second respondent) who was appointed in place of the earlier Estate Officer. In this notice, the said new Estate Officer, the respondent No.2, for the first time after the lapse of almost