A tenant whose tenancy has been duly terminated becomes an unauthorised occupant under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

V. K. Khanna, J.

1. Premises No. 173-A, Bharat Insurance Building New Cannought Place, Dehradun admittedly are owned by respondent no. 3, Life Insurance Corporation of India. The aforesaid premises were let out admittedly to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 50.88 and the terms of the lease were also reduced to writing which is contained in Annexure C.A.-I to the counter affidavit.

2. An application dated 22-1-1979 was given by the Life Insurance Corporation before the Estate Officer exercising the powers under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 on the ground that the petitioner illegally demolished portion of a wall between the two rooms in the disputed premises and inspite of telegraphic notice continued the work and opened a door in the wall thus substantially changed the shape of the premises and damaged it. It was also urged that despite service of the notice dated 21-8-1978 determining the tenancy of the petitioner, the premises have not been vacated and thus the petitioner has become unauthorised occupant of the premises in dispute. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and in pursuance of which objections were filed on 25th February 1980 denying the allegations made in the application.

From the record it is apparent that several dates were fixed in the case but the case could not proceed because of the adjournment sought by the petitioner and ultimately the case was decided on 26th June 1984 after taking evidence of the applicant Life Insurance Corporation. An application for recalling the exparte order was made on behalf of the petitioner which too was dismissed on 27-6-1984 by a reasoned order which is contained in Annexure C. A. "3" to the counter affidavit. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 which too has been dismissed. It is these orders of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority which have been challenged in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition has urged that the petitioner by no stretch of imagination could be called an unauthorised occupant under the Act as the tenancy could not be terminated except under the terras of the agreement. Reliance has been placed on para 11 of the written lease contained in Annexure CA.-I to the counter affidavit. It has been argued that the aforesaid written lease contained a contract that the tenancy could only be terminated in accordance with the terms of the lease and could not even be terminated under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court reported in Reserve Bank of India v. S. B. Srivastava, 1983 (2) ARC 111.

4. It has also been argued that in any view of the matter the lease granted in favour of the petitioner could have been determined for some reason and there being no reason for determination of the lease, the petitioner could not have become an unauthorised occupant within the meaning of the Act. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court reported in Shrimati Sushila Devi v. Rajya Sampatti Adhikari, 1984 (1) ARC p. 72.

It has been lastly urged that in case the lease was determined under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioner would not become unauthorised occupant. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court reported in Ballabh Das Daga v. Illrd Additional District Judge, 1978 (U. P.) RCC 565.

5. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the application moved by the Life Insurance Corporation was decided by the Estate Officer on 26th June 1984 exparte as despite affording adequate opportunity the petitioner had not appeared. In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the finding of the Estate Officer and of the Appellate Authority on the ground that sufficient cause had been shown for the non-appearance of the petitioner and the exparte order should ha