The above Civil Revision Petition arises against the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A. No. 122 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The revision petitioner was an employee in Integral Coach Factory (ICF). While the petitioner was in service, he was allotted a Type-II Quarters in South Colony for him to reside. On 22.08.2012, he was dismissed from service and was asked to vacate the Quarters within one month from the date of dismissal. By letter dated 25.08.2012, he was asked to handover vacant possession of the Quarters on or before 22.09.2012 without fail. As he failed to vacate the Quarters, the allotment of the said Quarters was cancelled by order dated 22.09.2012 and his occupation was treated as un-authorised. As per the said communication, the petitioner was asked to vacate the Quarters immediately. Further, he was also informed that eviction proceedings under the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 would be initiated against him, if he failed to vacate the Quarters.

3. On 03.10.2012, Form-A Notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Act calling upon him to show cause on or before 11.10.2012. The petitioner was also called upon to appear before the Estate Officer for personal hearing on 18.10.2012 to produce evidence in support of the show cause. The petitioner attended the personal hearings before the respondent. The Estate Officer, by order dated 29.11.2012, passed under Section 5(1) of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, directed the petitioner to vacate the Quarters within fifteen days from the date of publication of the order. Aggrieved over the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.A. No. 122 of 2012. The Lower Appellate Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A. No. 122 of 2012, the erstwhile employee of ICF has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Mr. P.S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.G. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The contention of Mr. P.S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the provisions of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were not followed by the respondent while ordering eviction. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the order of dismissal dated 22.08.2012 was also challenged by the revision petitioner in a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 25376 of 2012 before this Court and therefore, the petitioner should not be evicted from the premises before the disposal of the Writ Petition.

6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i) AIR 2008 Supreme Court 876 [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr.] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“34. Procedure laid down for recording evidence is stated in the Rules. The Estate Officer being a creature of the statute must comply the same. When a Notice is issued, the occupant of the public premises would not only be entitled to show cause but would also be entitled to produce evidence in support of the cause shown.

35. The procedural aspect as to who should lead evidence first, thus must have to be determined on the basis of the issues arising in the matter. When we say so, we do not mean that the procedure involved being a summary one, the issues are required to be specifically framed but that which is the principal issues between the parties must be known to the Estate Officer.

(ii) (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 177 [Meera Sahni Vs. Lientenant Governor of Delhi and others] wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

“35. It is by now a certain law that an action to be taken in a particular manner as provided by a s