BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 )

( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. The writ petition is directed against the judgment and/or order dated 02. 12. 2002 passed by the learned ADJ in appeal preferred u/s 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by the petitioner against an order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer on 09. 11. 2002.

( 3 ) THE premises in question, i. e. Shop no. 100/1, Shekhawati Lines, Delhi Cantt. was allotted to the petitioner by virtue of a licence agreement dated 01. 09. 1997 for running a general goods/vegetables and milk shop initially upto 31. 08. 1998. It is an admitted position that the licence agreement was renewed from time to time and lastly a fresh licence agreement was entered into for the period 01. 06. 2002 to 30. 04. 2003. Thereafter, a notice dated 15. 06. 2002 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 for vacation of the said premises. The notice read as under:-

"you are hereby advised to vacate the qtr. No. 100/1, Shekhawati Lines, Delhi cantt allotted to you by this unit by 30. 06. 2002 without fail. "

( 4 ) IT is the respondents case that as the petitioner had not vacated the premises in question, a notice u/s 4 of the said Act was issued to the petitioner. The grounds specified in the notice which was issued on 08. 10. 2002 were as under :-

"the public premises, Shop No. 100/1, shekhawati Lines, Delhi Cantt. , was allotted to you by department as per licence agreement dated 01 Sep. , 1997 for running a General Goods, Vegetables and Milk Shop for a period of one year w. e. f. 01 Sep. , 1997 to 31 Aug. , 1998. Allotment of said shop was cancelled by department owing to expiry of licence agreement and you were asked to vacate the said shop by 30 Jun. , 2002 vide their letter No. 1550/p dated 15 jun. , 2002. But you have failed to vacate the said shop and still occupying the same. Hence, department has alleged that you have been in unauthorised use/occupation of said shop and liable to be evicted besides payment of damage rate of rent for the period of unauthorised occupation of suit premises by you. "

( 5 ) THE Estate Officer thereafter passed the eviction order on 09. 11. 2002 which was confirmed in Appeal before the learned ADJ by his impugned order dated 02. 12. 2002. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds specified in the said notification u/s 4 are not the grounds on the basis of which the eviction has been ordered. He has pointedly raised the issue that the ground specified in the Section 4 notice clearly shows that the allotment of the said shop was cancelled by the department "owing to" expiry of the licence agreement and that the petitioner had been asked to vacate the said shop by 30. 06. 2002 vide letter dated 15. 06. 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this statement is ex facie wrong inasmuch as the licence had been extended from time to time and a fresh licence had been entered into on 01. 06. 2002 for the period 01. 06. 2002 to 30. 04. 2003. That being the case, there is no question of allotment of the shop being cancelled by the department "owing to expiry" of the licence agreement. Since the licence agreement had not expired, there is no question of any cancellation order being passed thereon. The fact that the licence agreement was valid and extended upto 30. 04. 2003 is an admitted and accepted fact as recorded in the Estate Officer s order as well as in the impugned order of learned ADJ. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the licence agreement has given the right to the respondents to. terminate the licence and in exercise of that right the letter dated 15. 06. 2002 had been issued asking the petitioner to vacate the said premises. Accordingly, he submits, in whichever manner the case is looked at, the petitioner would be an unauthorised occupant.

( 6 ) I am in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document