Kailash Gambhir, J.

1 This judgment shall dispose off a batch of four writ petitions bearing WPC No. 4342/07, WPC No. 4344/07, WPC No. 13393/09 & WPC No. 13628/09 filed by the same petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2 By WPC No. 4342/07 & WPC No. 4344/07, the petitioner seeks to set aside the common judgment and decree dated 22.5.07 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Estate Officer dated 18.4.06 under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 was dismissed. By WPC No. 13393/09 & WPC No. 13628/09 the petitioner assails the common order dated 29.10.09 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Estate Officer dated 18.4.06 under Section 7 of the PP Act was dismissed.

3. Facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details forming the heart of the controversy of these petitions are that the husband of the petitioner late Sh. P.L Verma was a tenant of two premises bearing Flat No. 14/12190 admeasuring 333 sq ft and Flat No. 7/10181 admeasuring 782 sq ft. on the first floor of the building known as the Tropical Building, situated at H Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi which are owned by the respondent Corporation. That the respondent Corporation required the premises for its own bonafide use and hence terminated the tenancy of the petitioner w.e.f 28.2.97 and served a legal notice dated 1.2.97/6.2.97 on the petitioner. That a notice dated 7.1.98 under Section 4(1) & 4(2)(b)(ii) & 7(3) of the PP Act was served on the petitioner in respect of the Flat No. 7/10181 and similarly a notice dated 12.1.98 was served in respect of the Flat No. 14/12190 and proceedings under Section 5 & 7 of the PP Act were initiated against the petitioner whereby vide order of the Estate Officer dated 18.4.06 the petitioner was declared to be in unauthorized occupation of the premises w.e.f 1.3.97 and was directed to pay damages. Consequently the petitioner filed appeals against the said order which vide impugned orders 22.5.07(for eviction) and 29.10.2009(for damages) in respect of both the premises were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner (now deceased, through her legal representatives) has preferred the present writ petitions.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that for deciding the present petitions a brief sketch of the background which has necessitated the filing of the present petitions is important. Counsel submitted that it is an admitted position that the husband of the deceased petitioner was the original tenant of the premises who entered into tenancy of the premises in the year 1946. Counsel further submitted that in 1946 the premises which are the subject matter of the present petitions belonged to a private party and then LIC was not in existence which came into existence in the year 1966 where after the husband of the petitioner got retired and then expired in the year 1987. Counsel submitted that during the intermittent period, LIC had taken over the premises and claimed that the petitioner should be governed by the Public Premises Act. Counsel thus submitted that the petitioner was tenant of a private landlord and from a private landlord, respondent LIC had taken over and the petitioner therefore happened to be under the tenancy of a new landlord. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that the statutory provisions must be complied with by implementation of the provisions enshrined in the Public Premises Act, the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Urban Development for preventing the misuse of the Public Premises Act should alone be the guiding factor. Counsel thus submitted that neither the provisions of the Act can be implemented in isolation and similarly nor the guidelines can be enforced in isolation. Emphasizing the importance of the said guidelines, the counsel submitted that keeping in view the law laid down by different High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the ongoing m