Personal hearing is to be given to person required to vacate premises.

1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23. 1996 made in CMA No. 55 of 1995 by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, thereby confirming the order dated 4. 1995 made in No. W/W/25 by the Estate Officer, Integral Coach Factory, Madras-600 038.

2. Thestarting point of the dispute is the show cause notice issued by the Office of the Chief Engineer dated 211. 1994 as per his proceeding in No. W/W/25 under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) contending thereby that the petitioner herein is in unauthorised occupation of the railway quarters bearing No. 248/4 I.C.F. North Colony, Madras- 38, from 11. 1994 beyond the permitted period of four months from the date of his retirement on 30.6.1994 and thereby calling upon him to show cause on or before 12. 1994 as to why such an order of eviction should not be made?

.3. For the said show cause notice, the petitioner has given a reply dated 30.11.1994. But the Office of the Chief Engineer not being satisfied with the reply to the show cause notice, had passed an order of eviction dated 4. 1995 addressing to the Inspector of Police, K-7 Police Station, ICF, Madras-38, and with a copy marked to the petitioner on 4. 1995, testifying the validity of which the revision petitioner has preferred an Appeal in CMA No. 55 of 1995 before the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and the said Appellate Authority, confirming the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer has dismissed the Appeal with costs.

4. Challenging and testifying the validity of the orders passed by both the revision petitioner has come forward to file the above revision on certain grounds, such as, (i) that the order passed by the authority below is not a speaking order; (ii) that the authority below ought to have held that the son of the petitioner is entitled to continue in the same quarters on out of turn basis under the father-to-son rule; (iii) that there are instances that many such others, viz ., M. Suresh Babu, D. Ragunathan, D. Krishnakumar and Sridhar have been allotted with quarters by the respondents and the petitioner’s son is only discriminated against in observance of the rule; (iv) that in view of the detailed representation to the show cause notice, the order of eviction is unwarranted; (v) that the second respondent did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order of eviction and he could not arrive at a subjective satisfaction for drawing his conclusions especially when such an order is passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; (vi) that a conjunctive reading of the show cause notice dated 211. 1994 and the reply dated 30, 11.1994 would clearly disclose that the impugned order is hit by discrimination and such of the acts of the respondents is nothing but arbitrary, discriminatory and, showing nepotism, (vii) that the learned Judge has failed to note that the respondents are deducting HRA from the salary of the petitioner’s son sin ce 12. 1993 till date and hence the petitioner cannot be termed as unauthorised occupant of the quarters; (viii) that the learned Judge has erroneously conclude as if the second respondent has passed the order of eviction only on the basis of the reply to the show cause notice; (ix) that the learned Judge ought to have held that the eviction order passed by the second respondent is not only violative of principles of natural justice, but also arbitrary exercise of powers. With the above grounds, the revision petitioner would pray for setting aside the orders passed by the authorities below.

.5. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is a railway employee and retired on 30.6.1994; that while he was in service, he was allotted Type-II quarters and his eldest son, viz., Jeyakumar also got employed since 1988;