The High Court's writ jurisdiction is limited to examining errors apparent on the record, not to reassess facts or evidence in eviction cases under the Public Premises Act.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) recall the order of the learned District Judge Hon'ble Sh. Dharmesh Sharma Judge, Tis hazari Delhi dated 02.02.2021, be recalled and set aside ; and/or

(b) recall the order of Estate officer passed on 07.03.2017 be recalled and set aside; and/or

(c) Pass such other and further orders(s) as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the Justice."

2. The present writ petition challenges the order dated 2nd February 2021 passed by the District and Sessions Judge in PPA No. 02/2017 whereby the appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the eviction order dated 7th March 2017 passed under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 was sustained.

3. The facts are that a Plot bearing no. B-51 measuring 400 sq. yards, Rewari Lane, Industrial area, Phase-II was allotted to M/s Hindustan Metalworks vide allotment letter dated 7th November 1969 and possession was handed on 30th January 1970. The plot could only be used for manufacturing of Aluminium kitchen wares as per the terms and conditions of the said Lease deed. The perpetual Lease deed was executed on 4th May 1972, through its proprietor Mr. Mohd. Shafi s/o Mohd. Aabid.

4. The field staff inspected the premises on 25th October 2002 and found that the property is being misused by constructing 53 shops at ground floor and 45 shops at first floor unauthorisedly and further sub-letted to various persons who are doing their trade/business. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 5th December 2012 was issued by the Delhi Development Authority to which no reply was received and resultantly, the lease of the plot was cancelled by the Competent Authority on 25th July 2003 due to violation of the terms and conditions of the Lease deed. This was communicated vide letter dated 11th August 2003 with a request to handover the physical possession of the property on 26th August 2003, but the Petitioner has failed to do so.

5. The eviction proceedings were initiated by the Delhi Development Authority. Amid this, a Suit numbered as 864/2006, titled as M/s Hindustan Metalworks vs. Delhi Development Authority was filed but was dismissed vide judgment dated 12th September 2013. The relevant portion is reproduced below:

"18. In such eventuality no fault can be found in the cancellation of lease deed. The possession of plaintiff can no longer be protected after the cancellation of the lease deed.

Accordingly, these issues are decided against the plaintiff and in the favour of the defendant."

6. The Estate Officer issued notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 to the unauthorised occupants who were given a number of hearings. The Estate Officer passed the eviction order dated 7th March 2017 directing M/s Hindustan Metalworks and all unauthorised occupants who are occupying the said premises or any part thereof to vacate the said premises within 15 days. Aggrieved by this eviction order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal bearing no. PPA 02/2017 which was dismissed on 2nd February 2021. Aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has contended that the Court below failed to appreciate that there is sufficient documentary evidence which shows that Petitioner is not unlawfully occupying the subject property. He further contended that the Petitioner who is the actual owner of the disputed property was not issued a fresh notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, 1971