VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ for quashing the orders dated 12.1.2008 and 15.3.2008 passed in Eviction Petition No.1/2006 by the Estate Officer, Bank of Baroda, Zonal Branch, New Delhi appointed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short `the Act?), with a further direction that the Estate Officer should proceed only with the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and not with the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner also seeks a direction for removal of the Estate Officer and for appointment of another Estate Officer as this Court may deem fit and proper.

2. By lease dated 30.8.1977, the petitioner took on lease from respondent no.1, premises admeasuring 1382.26 sq.ft on the 7th floor of the building known as Bank of Baroda Building, 16 Parliament Street, New Delhi for a period of ten years w.e.f. 1.6.1971 on a monthly rent of Rs.3885.42 inclusive of current taxes and Rs. 400/- per month for car parking space for two motor cars in the basement. The lease was extended for a period of five years on the same terms and conditions. It was further extended with enhancement of monthly rent and service charges. During the currency of the lease, the petitioner was declared a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction on 22.6.1988.

3. It appears that the petitioner went into arrears of rent and service charges. Vide notice dated 23.5.2006, the respondent bank terminated the lease and demanded arrears of rent and service charges and also called upon the petitioner to vacate the aforesaid premises. After some correspondence, the respondent no.1 invoked the provisions of the Act by filing a petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act against the petitioner before the Estate Officer i.e. respondent no.2. The substantial reliefs prayed for in that petition were the following:-

i) direct the respondent to forthwith evict and vacate the property in question i.e 7th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi admeasuring 1382.26 sq.ft(approx.) and deliver the actual, physical, vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the petitioner in the same state in which it was let out;

ii) direct the respondent to pay forthwith a sum of Rs.22,14,535.68 being the arrears in respect of rent and pay forthwith a sum of Rs.12,49626.00 being the arrears in respect of service charges aggregating to Rs.39,64,161.68 with interest thereon @ 18% p.a till actual realization thereof in the hands of the petitioner;”

4. Before the Estate Officer, the petitioner moved two interim applications, being I.A. Nos. 14 & 15 of 2008. I.A 14 of 2008 was preferred by the petitioner for the relief of striking out prayer clause no(ii) in the petition filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Though it was not so specifically stated in the application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis of this application was that the said relief could only be claimed under Section 7 of the Act, which had not been invoked by the respondent. I.A.15/2008 was preferred by the petitioner on the premise that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the prayer made in clause (ii) of the petition, as the proceedings before him were only under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and no show cause notice had been issued under Section 7(2), 7(2A) and 7(3) of the Act.

5. The Estate Officer, by his impugned order dated 12.1.2008 rejected both these contentions of the petitioner. He held that though the petition had been captioned as being 4 and 5 of the Act, prayer(ii) was in the nature of a consequential relief and that the omission to mention Section 7 of the Act in the title of the petition, or in the prayer clause of the petition cannot entail fatal consequences. He also observed that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document