The judgment established that the authorities have limited jurisdiction to evict unauthorized occupants of public premises and that the occupation of public premises after superannuation must be in accordance with the law.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 19869, 19873, 19876, 19880, 19884, 19891 and 19906 of 2009 titled Madan Lal Vs. HMT Limited; Krishan Lal Bihari Vs. HMT Limited; Surjit Kumar Vs. HMT Limited; Amar Chand Dhiman Vs. HMT Limited; Vinod Kumar Vs. HMT Limited; Naurang Lal Vs. HMT Limited and Rajinder Lal Vs. HMT Limited, respectively, as common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions.

2. For the sake of brevity,facts are being taken from CWP No. 19869 of 2009.

3. The petitioner joined Hindustan Machine Tools Limited on 29.11.1975. He retired from service as Deputy Engineer on 30.9.2008.

4. The Manager Estate exercising the powers under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Act) ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the premises belonging to HMT Ltd. Pinjore.

5. A notice was issued by the Estate Officer calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he be not evicted from the public premises. The petitioner contested the notice. The Estate Officer framed the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the Qtr is a Pubiic Premises?

2. Whether the defendant is un-authorised occupant of Public Premises?

3. Whether the present petition is maintainable?

4. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the present petition?

5. Whether the defendant owes to petitioners Company licence fees and other charges and quantum of recovery thereof?

6. The Estate Officer by relying upon notification No.SO 692 dated 6.2.1988 published in the Gazette of India Para II, Section 3 subsection (ii) appearing at Page No.794-797 dated 19.3.1988 held the premises in the occupation of the petitioner to be the public premises. The Estate Officer further held that allotment letter placed on record as Ex.B showed that the allotment of the quarter was made to the petitioner being an employee of the company and as per Clause 16 of the Letter of Allotment the petitioner was supposed to hand over the vacant possession of the quarter to Estate Officer on his superannuation. But in spite of issuance of several notices including cancellation of allotment, the petitioner failed to vacate the premises. Therefore, a finding was recorded that the petitioner was unauthorised occupant of the public premises. The Estate Officer further held that the respondents are also entitled to penal interest for unauthorised period of occupation till vacation of the quarter by the petitioner.

7. Appeal filled by the petitioner was also dismissed by recording the following findings:-

"7. The appellant has appended copies of numerous letters, Notifications, notices etc in support of the submission that the Company has been allotting the quarters to retired employees of the Company, employees of other department of the Government and even to private persons and in such circumstances, it was not proper for it to evict the appellant from the quarter of the Company, ignoring the fact that the former employees of the Company had served it during their prime period of life. I have gone through the annexures. Suffice to say that none of the annexures comes to the rescue of the appellant. It has nowhere been mentioned that an employee of the company, on his superannuation, would automatically be allotted the house in his favour. The crux of the annexures appended with the grounds of appeal is that the quarter of the Company could be allotted to ex-employees, employees of other departments and even to some private individuals. But as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, an employee on superannuation after certain period, becomes unauthorized occupant of the premises. An employee, of course, can always take steps to get the quarter allotted afresh in his favour by the Company in view of the latest policies. Since, no such re-allotment of the quarter has been made in favour of the appellant, so no fault can be found with the eviction order on that ground.

8. The main c