The main legal point established in the judgment is that mere rent acceptance does not automatically confer tenant status, and the wide powers granted to public authorities for eviction under the Public Premises Act.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 19th November, 1983 passed by Mr. S. P. Singh, Additional District Judge/ appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act ) in P. P. A. No. (s) 21/82 and 22/82, whereby and whereunder the appeals filed by the. writ petitioners herein purported to be in terms of Section 9 thereof arising out of an order dated 8th September, 1980 passed by Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of india, in case No. 13/77 were dismissed.

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. A mezzanine floor of the premises in question was left out by M/s. Tropical insurance Company in favour of one Uttam Prakash Bansal in the year 1950. He entered into a partnership with one Deen Dayal Kaushik. In the premises in question office of the firm was opened.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners herein rent used to be paid by both the partners of the said M/s. Tropical Insurance Company to the landlord to which they never objected.

( 4 ) IN the year 1965, in terms of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity as the lic Act ) all the insurance Companies, including that of the Tropical Insurance Company, were nationalized. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the provisions of the LIC Act the building in question was also taken over by the respondent No. 1. Rent for occupation of the said building continued to be paid from the account of M/s. Uttam parkash and Company.

( 5 ) MR. Uttam Parkash Bansal thereafter from time-to-time took other partners in the said firm and old partners thereof either continued or retired.

( 6 ) ALLEGEDLY during emergency Sh. Uttam Parkash Bansal was detained under misa and during his period of detention cheques for and on behalf of M/s. Uttam parkash and Company used to be signed by other partners. Although two cheques in the denomination of Rs. 280/- and Rs. 210/- were accepted, a third cheque issued by said partnership firm was not accepted. The same was returned alleging that the cheque was issued by a third party. Thereafter notice under Section 106 of the transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as t. P. Act ) was served upon the aforementioned Uttam Parkash Bansal inter alia on the ground that he had sub-let the said premises unauthorisedly by inducting S/shri ram Dev, Vinod Kumar and Nand Kishore. By reason of the said notice vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question was demanded by 31st May, 1976.

( 7 ) A proceeding in terms of the provisions of the said Act was thereafter initiated. Yet again a notice under Section 4 of the said Act was issued by the Life insurance Corporation (in short lic ) on or about 9th February, 1977 alleging therein that as the tenant had failed to hand over the possession, he was liable to be evicted. In the said proceedings damages for wrongful use and occupation were also sought for @ Rs. 883. 20p. per month till such time the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises is handed over to the LIC. The said notices are said to have been duly replied to. However, in the second notice the purpose for which the eviction of the tenant was sought for had not been stated.

( 8 ) NOTICE issued under Section 4 and Sub-section (1) as also notice under section 7, Sub-section (3) of the said Act were served.

( 9 ) IN the said proceeding witnesses were examined before the Estate Officer. By the order dated 8th September, 1980 the Estate Officer passed order of eviction as also payment of damages against Shri Uttam Parkash Bansal and his partners. Against the said orders appeals were preferred by the petitioners herein. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said appeals had been dismissed.

( 10 ) MR. A. S. Chandhiok, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would inter a