This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the first respondent, the Appellate Authority, passed under Section 9 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (Central Act 40 of 1971) in CMA.No.72 of 2005 dated 25.01.2006, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, South Zone, Chennai dated 10.05.2005, from the premises situate at No.149, 151, 151-A, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

2. The petitioner, which is a Partnership Firm is carrying on Auctioneer profession. The petitioner has administrative office at No.340, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai 600 001 and its place of auction, show room and godown are situate at No.149 and 151, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002, in an extent of 5005 sq.ft. and in No.151-A, Anna Salai in an extent of 583 sq.ft. The property originally belonged to M/s. Kushaldas & Sons, from whom the petitioner obtained lease on 01.03.1930 and put up superstructures in the form of Zinc sheet shed in the extent of 2800 sq.ft. out of the total extent of 5588 sq.ft. On 01.08.1953, M/s. Kushaldas & Sons have sold the leased land to the second respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short, LIC of India) and the petitioners lease was attorned by the LIC of India.

2(a). On 01.01.1982, the second respondent, LIC of India has granted lease of the premises for a period of three years on a consolidated rent of Rs.1,000/- per month and subsequently, it was increased to Rs.2,000/-per month by renewal of lease on 01.09.1985. Further, the lease was renewed on a consolidated rent of Rs.2,715/-per month on 01.09.1990; Rs.3660/- per month from 01.09.1995; and to Rs.11,000/-by renewing the lease on 01.09.2000, out of which, Rs.10,000/-being the rent for the building and Rs.1,000/- being the rent for the land. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it was granted renewal from time to time on a revised enhanced rent and it has been paying the rent regularly to the second respondent, LIC of India.

2(b). According to the petitioner, the second respondent, LIC of India has sent letters dated 21.07.2003, 210. 2003 and 111. 2003, calling upon the petitioner for discussion at the LIC Office and in the meeting, where the Secretary (Estates) and the Assistant Secretary (Estates) have told the petitioner that the rent will be refixed and asked the petitioner to wait for finalisation of the renewal. However, on 18.03.2004, the second respondent has terminated the tenancy in respect of the leased premises.

2(c). The petitioner has sent a reply on 06.04.2004, stating that when discussion regarding the renewal of lease on a revised rent is pending, it is not open to the second respondent to unilaterally terminate the tenancy and that the petitioner is always willing to pay the enhanced rent. Even for the period when the discussions were going on for renewal during November, December, 2003 and January, 2004, the petitioner has been paying rent regularly and the same was accepted by the second respondent by passing receipts.

2(d). The Estate Officer of the second respondent, LIC of India has sent a notice to the petitioner on 22.06.2004 under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (Central Act 40 of 1971) (in short, "the Act"), treating the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant and called upon it to show-cause, why it should not be evicted from the leased premises on the basis that there was no subsisting lease agreement. The petitioner sent a reply on 09.07.2004, stating that under the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration that the petitioner has been in the premises for five decades and negotiations were going on for renewal of lease as it has been done in the past, the petitioner cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant.

2(e). The Estate Officer, who is the Enquiring Authority under the Act, conducted an enquiry by giving opportunity to both the parties and after completing