Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the prayer on behalf of the petitioner is to quash the impugned orders dated 18.7.1996 and 6.12.1996 (Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Further prayer is to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction over the property situated at Taj Road, Agra Cantt, Agra pursuant to the impugned orders.

3. On 10.12.1996, the demolition of the property in question was stayed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in question is part of the Bungalow No. 49, Taj Road, Agra on which the petitioner is tenant and Sri N.K.Patni is the landlord. The notice was issued under Section 5-A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1971’) for removal of the construction existing on a portion of land of Bungalow No. 49 with the allegation that the petitioner has raised unauthorised construction without obtaining sanction of the respondent No. 3 Union of India. The notice dated 10.10.1994 was issued by the Estate Officer under Section 5-B of the Act to Sri N.K.Patni as well as to the petitioner. The objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner that the allegation of unauthorised construction was incorrect and the action was illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further case of the petitioner that the land in question lies within the cantonment area and as such the Estate Officer who has issued notices was not authorised to do so under the said Act. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 instituted case No. 4/314/PPE Act/49 against the petitioner in the Court of respondent No. 1. Objection was filed before the respondent No. 1 on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, was not attracted. The proceeding on the basis of the notice which was wholly vague, illegal for eviction and demolition of the construction in question was without jurisdiction and no action can be taken under such provision. It was also contended that the site does not vest in the Government, hence, it was not public premises within the meaning of the Act, 1971. The notice under Section 5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was not maintainable.

5. The case of respondent No. 3 which was filed in reply to the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner was that the land in question falls and vests in the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, which was within the Cantonment limits of Agra, therefore, Sri N.K.Patni was bound to obtain sanction of the construction from the competent authority under the provisions of Cantonment Act 1954. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 1 directed for demolition of the construction situated on the part of the land of Bungalow No. 49 without deciding the question as to whether the property in question was a public premises within the meaning of the said Act or not. Respondent No. 1 also failed to consider the validity of the notice and the objection of the respondent No. 2 and the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the order dated 18.7.1996 passed by the respondent No. 1, the appeal was preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act before respondent No. 2. However, the appeal was dismissed by impugned judgment and order dated 6.12.1996.

6. He further submitted that in view of the provisions under Section 2(E) of the Act, 1971, the building in question is not covered within the definition of public premises under the said Act, hence, the finding recorded by the respondent No. 1 and 2 are totally illegal and without jurisdiction.

7. It was further content