KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 23.09.2006 passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer against the petitioner has been upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner was a tenant of the respondent in respect of the property bearing Shop No.11, Punjab National Bank Building, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent of the said premises and hence a legal notice dated 3.6.87 was served upon the petitioner terminating the said tenancy with effect from 30.6.87. Thereafter the Estate Officer served a show cause notice dated 23.7.1987 on the petitioner and an eviction order dated 26.7.1991 was passed by the learned Estate Officer against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned ADJ vide order dated 23.9.2006 thereby upholding the order of the Estate Officer. Feeling aggrieved with the abovesaid orders the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Ld. Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a statutory tenant under the Provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and therefore the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 could not have been invoked against the petitioner to seek eviction of the petitioner from the premises under its occupation. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the eviction of the petitioner also could not have been sought in view of the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court recommending settlement of disputes between two Government Corporations by the High Power Committee of Disputes. The contention of the counsel was that without referring the said dispute to the High Power Committee, the petitioner cannot be evicted from its lawful occupation of the premises by resorting to the Public Premises Act. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban Development wherein it has been clearly stated that the genuine tenants from Public Premises under the Control of Public Sector Undertakings/Financial Institutions should not be evicted while resorting to the provisions of the Public Premises Act. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a sick company and therefore cannot be burdened to pay the arrears of the damages as claimed by the respondent.

4. Refuting the said arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Ld. Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the premises under its occupation, due to the non-payment of huge arrears of rent/damages. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner, despite grant of numerous opportunities, failed to contest the proceedings before the Estate Officer while the respondents fully established its case based on oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner has already been successful in enormously delaying the matter as proceedings before the Estate Officer were initiated in the year 1987 which led the Estate Officer to pass an eviction order on 26.07.1991 and it is almost for more than a period of 20 years that the petitioner continued to remain in illegal occupation of the said premises. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1997) 5 SCC 511 has taken a view that the matter like eviction of public premises cannot be referred to be resolved by the High Power Committee and therefore the plea taken by the petitioner in this regard is an