IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of payments made by occupants, coupled with evidence of regularization or lawful occupation, determines their status as authorized or unauthorized occupants under the Public Premises Act.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J. -These writ petitions based on same legal and factual matrix are taken up together. Except the writ petition WP(C) 12433/2022 titled 'M/s Khanna Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors', the remaining writ petitions were filed to assail the orders dated 30.05.2019 of the Estate Officer under Sections 5 & 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and orders dated 08.09.2021 of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi in appeals under Section 9 of the Act, the said impugned orders being almost copy paste in view of same legal and factual matrix. The writ petition WP(C) 12433/2022 was filed to assail demolition order and letter dated 23.08.2022 of the respondent DDA issued in furtherance of orders under Section 5 of the Act. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes, as extracted from pleadings and records are as follows.

2.1 The petitioners are occupants of different premises constructed on different portions of land bearing Khasra No. 407 min in the Revenue Estate of Village Malikpur Chhawani on GT Karnal Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises"). According to the petitioners, they were inducted in the subject premises on lease by the erstwhile recorded owner Shri Raja Ram prior to the year 1960 and they were regularly paying him rent for their respective portions. Further, according to the petitioners, the subject premises are covered under in situ Regularization Policies of the Industries in the area and the subject premises are enlisted at No. 1 in the list of areas prepared to regularization by the Government in the year 1999. Also according to the petitioners, under the directions of the Supreme Court to the Commissioner of Industries, the area was physically surveyed by the Delhi Government through Committee which submitted a detailed report to the effect that 15 industrial areas were found to have more than 70% industrial concentration for inclusion under the Industrial Area Redevelopment Scheme and these units need not be relocated to the new areas being developed under the Relocation Scheme. After change in title of the subject premises claimed by the respondent DDA, the petitioners started paying lease amount, time to time, which was accepted against receipts by DDA as damages.

2.2 According to petitioners, in the month of April 2006, notices under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act were issued, calling upon them to show cause as to why eviction orders be not passed against them; and in furtherance thereof, ex-parte eviction orders dated 17.07.2006 were passed by the respondent no. 2, which ex-parte orders on being challenged in appeals under Section 9 of the Act were set aside vide judgments dated 08.12.2006, remanding the matters to the Estate Officer for recording evidence. The said proceedings, remanded before the Estate Officer culminated in the impugned order dated 30.05.2019, thereby rejecting the plea of the petitioners. The said order dated 30.05.2019 of the Estate Officer on being challenged in appeal under Section 9 of the Act was partly upheld (to the extent of eviction of the petitioners) by way of the impugned order dated 08.09.2021 of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, North, Rohini, Delhi.

2.3 Thence, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions [except WP(C) 12433/2022], assailing the orders dated 30.05.2019 and 08.09.2021 of the Estate Officer and the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge respectively.

2.4 During pendency of those writ petitions, the respondents passed demolition order dated 02.08.2022 and letter dated 23.08.2022 directing the local police to provide force for demolition/eviction of the subject premises. That led to filing of WP(C) 12433/2022.

2.5 In the meanwhile, on 24.03.2023 in the course of hearing of these writ petitions, the predecessor bench was informed by learned counsel for