JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. - The petitioner challenges the order of 19 September 2014 passed by the appellate authority in proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act, 1971 [act]. The appellate authority has affirmed the order of eviction as framed by the Estate Officer in terms of the provisions made under Section 5 of the act. It has essentially found that the petitioner here claimed an interest in the public premises by virtue of being a member of the Delhi Peasant Multipurpose Society Limited [Society]. admittedly the lease that was executed by the Delhi Development authority [authority] in favour of the Society had come to an end by efflux of time. The authority thereafter proceeded to direct it to hand back possession of the leased land. Since its numerous members including the petitioner failed to vacate the subject premises, proceedings under the act came to be initiated and which ultimately culminated in the passing of eviction orders by the Estate Officer. It is in the aforesaid background that the appellate authority came to hold that since the petitioner claimed a right to occupy and cultivate the land constituting the subject premises only through the Society, no right stands vested in him to continue to occupy the public premises.

2. It becomes apposite to note that the writ petition has been styled as having been instituted by 'Shree Roshal Lal (deceased) through his brother Raj Kumar'. admittedly, the proceedings under the act were initiated against the deceased cultivator. He is stated to have died on 06 May 2018. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been occupying the land in question where the widow of the erstwhile cultivator also resides. It is in the aforesaid background and on an assertion that the petitioner was also a member of the Society that the present writ petition has been preferred. It becomes necessary to note that the institution of the present writ petition on behalf of a dead individual cannot possibly be countenanced. However, since the petitioner claims to be an agriculturist of meagre means and the present matter was duly entertained way back in 2019, the Court does not choose to non-suit him on this technical ground. The Court thus proceeds on the basis that the writ petition is being pursued by the brother of the original cultivator asserting a right to possess the land in his own right.

3. When the writ petition was initially entertained, a learned Judge taking note of the orders passed in the W.P.(C) Nos. 2 and 3 of 2019 had provided that till 08 January 2019, status quo in respect of the petitioner's land would be maintained. The said order reads thus:-

'2. For the reasons stated in the orders dated 2nd January, 2019, passed in

W.P.(C) Nos.2 & 3of 2019, it is directed that until 8th January, 2019, status quo shall be maintained in respect of the petitioner's land, as existing at the time of passing this order, i.e. 4:20 PM on 4th January, 2019.'

4. In order to appreciate the challenge addressed in this petition, it would be necessary to notice the following salient facts.

5. The petitioner claims to be a member of the Society and states that the land in question had been in the cultivatory possession of his predecessors in interest since pre-Independence. It is his case that the land was being tilled by his forefathers from time immemorial and in any case prior to the promulgation of the Delhi Land Reforms act, 1954 [1954 act]. The petitioner claims to have been in continuous possession of the land for decades and of having paid rent to the Society periodically. The authority claims title over the land by virtue of being the successor to the Delhi Improvement Trust [Trust] in whose favour a lease had come to be executed by the Secretary of State for India on 31 March 1937. The Trust is stated to have allotted 13,344 bighas falling in seven villages for a period of five years to the Society. The lease is stated to hav