G.S. Kulkarni, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the judgment and order dated 1st November 2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune, whereby the appeal of the petitioner under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Public Premises Act) has been rejected, confirming an eviction order.

2. The petitioner claims to be the successor of one M/s. Excel Phospho Chemicals (Excel for short), which according to the petitioner came to be amalgamated in proceedings in Company Petition No.533 of 2005 under an order dated 28th October, 2008 between one STS Chemicals and the Petitioner herein. The order passed by the High Court and the amalgamation scheme is placed on record in the paper book of this petition.

3. The respondent No.1 Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., (for short Respondent) is a Government Company. There is no dispute that the premises in question belonging to the respondent are public premises within the purview of the Public Premises Act. Excel was granted on lease an open plot of land by respondent No.1 under a lease agreement dated 12th November 1960. The period of lease as specified under the agreement was from 1st November 1961 to 31st December 1985 at the rate of Rs.250 per month per acre. There is no dispute that this lease agreement was duly registered. It would be fruitful to note some of the contents of this lease agreement, which are as under:-

(i) The agreement specifically describes "lessees" (Excel) as "which expression wherever the context so requires or admits of meaning and include them and the partner or partners for the time being in the said business and survivor or survivors and their heirs, executors or administrators of such survivors or their assigns."

(ii) Lessees (Excel) requested the lessors (Respondent) to grant lease of land for the purpose of setting up ancillary industrial units.

(iii) The agreement was to hold the premises by lessees for a period of 25 years commencing from 1/1/1961 and ending on 31/12/1985 for a rent of Rs.250/- p.m. per acre.

(iv) The schedule of properties in the agreement does not give description of any structures on the plot of land.

(v) It was permissible for the lessees to construct super structures, compound wall, enclosures extensions to the factory buildings as necessary at the cost of the lessees.

(vi) At the expiration or sooner determination of the term of the lease till vacant possession to the lessors, the lessees were entitled to remove the building and fixtures and fittings constructed or installed by the lessees provided that in the event of failure to vacate the site by the lessees, the lessors shall have the right to remove or cause to be removed all the machineries and other appurtenances at the cost and risk of the lessees.

(vii) In the event of vacating of the site by the lessee on their own accord or under any of the clauses in the agreement, the land was to be restored to its original form and condition by the lessees, failing which the lessors shall have a right to do so at the cost and risk of the lessees and to recover lease money at the rate applicable under the agreement until the land has been so restored.

(viii) The lessees shall not part with or in any form mortgage, assign, sub-lease or sub-let whole or in part thereof of the land leased out to them by the lessors without the previous consent in writing from the lessors and no arrangement made by the lessees without such prior concurrence shall be binding on the lessors.

4. The case of the petitioner is that after expiry of the above lease period a supplementary agreement dated 30th July 1988 came to be executed between M/s. Excel and respondent No.1 whereby the lease which had expired on 31st December 1985 was agreed to be extended for a further period of 25 years to expire on 31st December 2010. This supplementary agreement is not a registered document. It appears that Excel was also in arrears of re