The eviction under the Public Premises Act was upheld as lawful, with sufficient notice and adherence to due process, and claims of bias against the Estate Officer were rejected.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) set-aside the impugned judgment dated 17.05.2022 upholding the Order passed by the Estate Officer dated 1.07.2021 passed by the Estate Officer; and/or (b) Pass any such other and further orders in favour of the Petitioners as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the following course of events have culminated into the controversy before this Court in the instant petition:

a. The respondent had filed an Application under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter "PP Act") seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question situated at 5 Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001. The respondent has its offices situated at the premises, a portion of which, i.e., second floor admeasuring 5471 sq. ft, was in the occupation of the petitioner.

b. The respondent issued a notice of termination dated 25th May 2007 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, whereby it terminated the monthly tenancy of the petitioner with respect to the premises and sought its eviction on the ground that the premises was required by the respondent for its own banking use. The petitioner also furnished its reply to the notice on 18th August 2007.

c. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner by the Estate Officer, UCO Bank, on 19th September 2008, under Section 4 of the PP Act asking the petitioner to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be made against it. The petitioner replied to the Show Cause Notice on 17th November 2008 and sought the recalling of the Notice on inter alia the grounds that, the concerned Estate Officer had a direct and personal interest in the eviction of the petitioner from the premises since he was also the Deputy General Manager of the respondent Bank, the petitioner had been operating on the premises in question since 1958 and had been paying regular rent to the respondent, the termination notice and the Show Cause Notice suffered from infirmities.

d. On 16th September 2013, the concerned Estate Officer passed a detailed and comprehensive order under Section 5 (1) of the PP Act declaring the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant of the premises in question, in pursuance of the terminated lease deed and non- vacation of the premises by the petitioner thereof.

e. Assailing the order dated 16th September 2013, the petitioner approached the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and vide order dated 22nd May 2014, the order dated 16th September 2013 was set aside with a direction to the Estate Officer to give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence qua the Power of Attorney given by the respondent to PW2, Rajeev Kumar Khanna.

f. Subsequently, the Estate Officer, on 1st July 2021, allowed the application on behalf of the respondent for eviction of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing PPA No. 5/2021 under Section 9 of the PP Act before the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the order dated 17th May 2022.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the instant petition.

4. This matter was first liste