Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to reviewing the legality of process rather than re-evaluating facts. Eviction upheld for breaches of lease conditions.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant civil writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing and setting aside of order dated 6th June 2003, passed under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "PP Act") passed by the Estate Officer concerned, as well as of order dated 30th October 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Appellate Court") in PPA No. 3/08/03.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The following course of events have led to filing on the instant petition:

3. Petitioner no. 1/M/s Jeps Pharma (P) Ltd. (hereinafter "the lessee") was leased out the premises bearing Plot No. 133, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi by the Delhi Administration via a perpetual Lease Deed dated 28th January 1993. The petitioner no. 1/lessee sold the premises in question to one Mahesh Kapoor, petitioner no. 2, through its Director Shri Jatinder Singh Kohli, vide Sale Agreement dated 15th March 1995 and petitioner no. 2 became its General Power of Attorney holder (hereinafter referred to as "GPA") and subsequently, got a building constructed at the premises.

4. In December 1998-January 1999, the petitioner received a Notice under the PP Act for hearing on 5th January 1999 issued in pursuance of an ex-parte order of cancellation of Lease Deed of the petitioners dated 27th May 1998 and its corrigendum dated 20th June 1998 passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Industries, GNCTD/respondent no. 1. The petitioner made a representation to the Lt. Governor of Delhi for revocation of the said ex-parte order. The petitioner, thereafter, also filed detailed objections on 5th March 1999 with the concerned Estate Officer pursuant to which proceedings under the PP Act were initiated. During the course of proceedings, the same were transferred from one Estate Officer, namely Sh. H.L. Malik, to another, that is, Sh. C.B. Meshram/respondent no. 2.

5. The matter before the Estate Officer came to a conclusion with the passing of the impugned order dated 6th June 2003, whereby, proceedings for eviction of the petitioner were ordered to be initiated after observing on essentially the grounds, first, that reasonable opportunities were given to the petitioner to present their case before cancellation of the lease and completion of these proceedings, however, no response was submitted by them, secondly, that the petitioner was not running the industry for the purposes for which the lease was granted and plot was allotted to it and hence, it violated the terms of the lease, and thirdly, that none of the directors of the petitioner, or any other person on its behalf, replied to the Notice served under the PP Act.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Estate Officer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which also came to be decided against the petitioner by the passing of the impugned order dated 30th October 2009, wherein it was observed that adequate notice was served to the petitioners herein and they were given a fair, just and reasonable opportunity to present their case. It was further observed that the premises in question were in fact a public premise and thus, no grounds were found to interfere with the impugned order of 6th June 2003.

7. During the pendency of the Appeal, a Scheme of C