Hon’ble Janardan Sahai, J.—The petitioners are tenants of a premises which was owned by the Life Insurance Corporation. The tenancy of the petitioners was terminated by a notice dated 5.7.78. The respondent Life Insurance Corporation instituted proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for short the "P.P.Act" treating the petitioners as unauthorised occupants. An order was passed by the Estate Officer in the year 1982 for the eviction of the petitioners. Against that order the petitioners preferred two appeals. The appellate authority by its order dated 13.11.84 allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Estate Officer to decide the same afresh in the light of observations made in that order. Against this order of the appellate authority the respondent Life Insurance Corporation filed writ petition No. 1868 of 1985. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 26.7.2002 and the case was sent back to the appellate authority for decision afresh. In consequence of the remand order the matter was again heard by the appellate authority and the appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the impugned order dated 3.11.2007

2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. The petition is therefore being disposed of finally. Even before the present bout of litigation under the P.P. Act the respondents had sought the eviction of the petitioner under the Rent Control Act 1947 but the respondents were unsuccessful in those proceedings. During the pendency of this long bout of litigation the Central Govt. issued certain guidelines on 8.6.2002 relating to eviction proceedings under the P.P. Act. The said guidelines are quoted as follows :

"2. To prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants from public premises and to limit the use of powers by the Estate Officers appointed under Section 3 of the PP(E) Act, 1971, it has been decided by the Government to lay down the following guidelines :

(i) The provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ( PP(E) Act, 1971) should be used primarily to evict totally unauthorised occupants of the premises of public authorities or sub-letees, or employees who have ceased to be in their service and thus ineligible for occupation of the premises.

(ii) The provisions of the P.P.(E) Act, 1971 should not be resorted to either with a commercial motive or to secure vacant possession of the premises in order to accommodate their own employees, where the premises were in occupation of the original tenants to whom the premises were let either by the public authorities or the persons from whom the premises were acquired.

(iii) A person in occupation of any premises should not be treated or declared to be an unauthorised occupant merely on service of notice of termination of tenancy, but the fact of unauthorised occupation shall be decided by following the due procedure of law. Further, the contractual agreement shall not be wound or by taking advantage of the provisions of the P.P.(E) Act, 1971. At the same time, it will be open to the public authority to secure periodic revision of rent in terms of the provisions of the Rent Control Act in each State or to move under genuine grounds under the Rent Control Act for resuming possession. In other words the public authorities would have rights similar to private landlords under the Rent Control Act in dealing with genuine legal tenants.

(iv) It is necessary to give no room for allegations that evictions were selectively resorted to for the purpose of securing an unwarranted increase in rent, or that a change in tenancy was permitted in order to benefit particular individuals or institutions. In order to avoid such imputations or abuse of discretionary powers, the release of premises or change of her tenancy should be decided at the level of Board of Directors