ANIL KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed for issuance of Writ quashing of notice dated 8th June, 1994 issued by the Estate Officer under section 7 (3) of the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 for payment of arrears of rent in respect of premises situated at Ashoka Hotel, 50 B Chanakyapuri, New delhi-110021.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a banking company incorporated in UK and having its registered office in India at H-2, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi. The petitioner company was into the business of issuing Visa cards for buying the goods and services on credit by entering into agreement, which governs the relationship between the petitioner and the establishment for the repayment of the money in lieu of visa card. According to the petitioner every Visa card has a floor limit and the user of the card in excess of floor limit requires authorization from the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that if no specific authorization of the transaction is obtained in case the card is used in excess of the floor limit then the petitioner is not liable to reimburse the shops/establishments which accepts the said visa card in terms of the agreement.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT no. 2, Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited, is a government Company incorporated under the Companies Act and respondent No. 3, m/s Ashoka Hotel, is its constituent unit.

( 4 ) BRIEF facts to comprehend the dispute are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent no. "2 dated 1. 6. 1989. The floor limit as provided under the schedule of the agreement was Rs. 16,000/ -. On 22. 12. 1989 dwarka Nath Tandon, a visa card holder, purchased liquor worth Rs. 23,400/- from the Garden Bar of the respondent no. 3 and the bill was settled with respondent no. 3 through his visa card bearing No. 4563 9810 0316 6024 and the respondent no. 3 accepted the same in total disregard of the agreement without obtaining the authorization from the petitioner bank despite knowing the fact that the billing amount exceeded the floor limit.

( 5 ) SINCE the amount exceeded the floor limit and no authorization was obtained from the petitioner so the petitioner refused to reimburse the amount to the respondent no. 3. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 has by ticket splitting attempted to circumvent the floor limit. The respondent issued various demand letters to the petitioner for remittance of amount, however, the same was declined by the petitioner. By letter dated 15. 6. 1991 the petitioner informed the respondent that a recovery suit has been instituted against Dwarka Nath Tandon by the petitioner which is pending in the court. By letter dated 8. 7. 1991 the respondent no. 3 again called for payment of the amount from the petitioner failing which it was contended that a legal action will be initiated for recovery of amount. The petitioner replied to the letter denying any liability whatsoever as the same was in excess of the hotel"s floor limit.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER an application under section 7 of the public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971 was filed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 before the Estate Officer for issuance of orders for recovery of Rs. 23,700/-, pursuant to which a notice under section 7 (3) of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued by the respondent No. 4, Estate officer, for payment of a total sum of Rs. 46,652/- which amount includes 18% interest as arrears of rent on 8. 6. 1994 calling upon the petitioner to show cause on 18. 7. 1994 at 3:00 PM.

( 7 ) ON receipt of the notice under section 7 (3) of the public premises act the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the impugned notice on the ground that the notice issued is an abuse of the process of law as the provision of Public Premises Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as the petitioner is neither a tenant nor he is in unaut