High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 requires proving gross illegality or irregularity for intervention; cancellation of lease upheld based on violations 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 13TH February 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. 4/08/03.

FACTUAL MATRIX

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

3. Petitioner no. 1/M/s Premier Enterprises (hereinafter "the lessee") was leased out the premises bearing Plot No. 106, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi by the Delhi Administration, through its proprietor Pushpalata, via a perpetual Lease Deed dated 18th August 1992. The petitioner no. 1/lessee sold the premises in question to one Vijay Chhabra, on 18th September 1992, who further sold the same to Balvinder Sachdeva, petitioner no. 2, vide Sale Agreement dated 10th June 1994 and one Soma Rani 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 passed in pursuance of an ex-parte order of cancellation of Lease Deed of the petitioners dated 28th May 1998 and its corrigendum dated 30th 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 dated 5th August 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 13th February 2003, whereby, proceedings for eviction of the petitioner were ordered to be initiated after observing on essentially the ground that Smt. Pushplata and Smt. Soma Rani were occupying the premises unauthorizedly and were not handing over the possession.

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 13th February 2003.

7. During the pendency of the Appeal, a Scheme of Conversion of property from Leasehold to Freehold was introduced by the respondent (hereinafter "the Scheme"). The petitioner, seeking benefits under the Scheme, approached the Office of Commissioner of Industries where he wa