MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single judge dated 14. 10. 2003 by which the Writ Petition was dismissed.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that the Petitioner Mrs. Prem Lata Bhatia was allotted in perpetuity Shop No. 10, Asia House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, new Delhi, by the Union of India in 1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 901/ -. Consequently, the petitioner came into exclusive possession of the shop. Clause 8 of the License Deed states as under:-"the Licensee (s) shall not permit the said premises or any part thereof being used by any other person for any purpose whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the Government and in default thereof shall be liable for ejectment. The Licensee (s) shall not introduce any partner nor shall he/they transfer possession of the premises or part thereof or otherwise carry on the business in the premises with any other person or assign, transfer, change, otherwise alienate his interest in the premises. "

( 4 ) THE Petitioner incorporated a company called Romika World Travel pvt. Ltd. in November 1976 wherein the petitioner along with her husband was holding more than 97. 93% shares in the Company.

( 5 ) IT is alleged that the shop continued to be managed by the petitioner through the aforesaid company which was running its business from the shop in question right from 1976 onwards to the knowledge of every one including the respondent with no objection. There had been no change on the shareholding of the petitioner and the petitioner continued to hold more than 97% shares with her husband. The petitioner continued to carry on her business of Travel in the said shop.

( 6 ) AFTER a lapse of about 7 years, the respondent by letter dated 22. 08. 1983 called upon the petitioner to show the documents relating to the business being run in the premises. It was alleged that on inspection it was found that Romika World Travel Pvt. Ltd. was functioning in the premises. A true copy of the said letter is Annexure P-I to the writ petition.

( 7 ) THE petitioner sent her reply and thereafter there was a complete silence by the respondent and the petitioner consequently believed that the respondents were satisfied that the premises were not being used by any other person other than the petitioner. At any event, it is stated that the respondent acquiesced in the petitioner s Company carrying on business in the said shop.

( 8 ) AFTER 1983 again the petitioner received no communication from the respondent till 1987. The petitioner received a communication dated 02. 09. 1987 informing her that there had been violation of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and the petitioner was informed that the tenancy would stand determined from October 1987 vide Annexure P-II.

( 9 ) THE petitioner gave a reply to this communication, stating that she was not given any opportunity for hearing vide Annexure P-III. Thereafter, the respondent initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, against the petitioner. The Petitioner filed her objections to the same stating that she had not violated any terms and was not given any show-cause notice.

( 10 ) DURING these proceedings before the Estate Officer, the petitioner receiver another communication dated 21. 04. 1989 calling upon the petitioner to submit documents relating to the business. True copy of the said communication/letter is Annexure P-IV and reply is Annexure P-V.

( 11 ) HOWEVER, the Estate Officer by his Eviction Order on 16. 10. 1990 ordered eviction of the petitioner. The elevant part of the said order states that the shop which was allotted to the petitioner was being run by Romika world Travel Pvt. Ltd. without any authority. This is clearly a case of subletting as Mrs. Prem Lata Bhatia is doing business with another partne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document