JUDGMENT :

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.08.2010 made in W.P.No.11885 of 2010 on the file of this Court.

The present Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 26.08.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11885 of 2010, whereunder the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the Writ Petition quashing the proceedings of the appellant seeking eviction of the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “TNPP Act, 1975”).

2. The undisputed case is that an extent of 4 grounds 2230 sq.ft. in Block No.41, S.No.1 (part) in Oorur Village, 3rd Avenue, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 90 belongs to the appellant. The 1st respondent had taken possession of the premises in the year 1978 for the purpose of running a playground. The lease had expired on 21.07.1981. No records have been produced either side to show that the lease has been extended subsequently. In the year 1994, the appellant sought to take possession of the premises and the Writ Petition came to be filed in W.P.No.3536 of 1994. In the said Writ Petition, the relief sought for was for a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the Corporation from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of aforesaid property. On a statement made by the learned counsel for the Corporation in those proceedings that the lease had been extended, the Writ Petition came to be allowed. On 23.09.2009, the appellant issued a show cause notice to the 1st respondent under the provisions of the TNPP Act, 1975. A reply was sent by the 1st respondent on 29.09.2009. Final orders were passed on 19.03.2010 holding that the 1st respondent is in unauthorised occupation and it was directed to hand over possession of the premises within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In default of handing over possession, it was ordered that further proceedings would be taken under the TNPP Act, 1975.

3. Challenging this order, a Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent in W.P.No.11885 of 2010.

4. This Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the following grounds:

(i) The stand taken by the Corporation in the previous Writ Petition that the lease had been extended runs contrary to the view that the lease had expired on 21.07.1981.

(ii) Reasons given in the show cause notice and the reasons given in the impugned order are different.

(iii) Reply given by the 1st respondent on 29.09.2009 was not considered.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the submissions before they made before the learned Single Judge. We have carefully considered the arguments of both sides and gone through the records produced by the appellant.

6. It is necessary to refer the provisions of the TNPP Act, 1975. This Act was brought into force for eviction of unauthorised persons from public premises, which were being delayed by presentation of suits. It is a summary remedy. If the premises is “public premises” and the person is in “unauthorised occupation”, after conducting an enquiry, an order has to be passed. The relevant provisions are Section 2(e)(2), Section 2(g) and Sections 3, 4 & 5. The nature of proceedings is summary proceedings which has to be preceded by a show cause notice, a reply and a final order of eviction. In the present case, that the premises is “public premises” cannot be disputed because as per Section 2(e)(2), any premises belonging to or vested in a local authority or any Board constituted under any law is “public premises”. The Act also defines “unauthorised occupation” in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of tr