Point of Law : Document sought to be brought on record have been obtained by the appellant under Right to Information Act only in 2019.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.6 and 7.

2. Since the respondent no.5 is the Estate Officer i.e. Quasi-Judicial Authority, whose order has been challenged in this petition, there is no need to issue notice to the respondent no.5.

3. This petition has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 19 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.194 of 2019 arising out of order passed by the Estate Officer c/o Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Lucknow, dated 30.07.2019.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Shop No.1, Block A, Nehru Road Shopping Complex, Sadar Bazar, Cantt Lucknow, was leased out to one Shri Munna Lal petitioner no.1 in an public auction held on 22.07.1981, for a monthly rent which was deposited by the lessee on 31.12.1981, in pursuance of sanction granted on 07.11.1981 by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command, Lucknow. The lease deed was signed on 16.03.1983. The original allottee Munna Lal continued to pay the monthly rent of Rupees 236.70/-and continued in occupation of the shop in question till his death on 31.03.1999. It has been argued that the petitioner no.2 Mohammad Saleem inherited the shop by virtue of a registered will made out by the original allottee Munna Lal in favour of Mohammed Saleem on 05.10.1989. Mohammed Saleem was in possession of the shop in question when the Cantonment Board through its Chief Executive Officer issued a letter dated 29.06.2013, to the Lessee Munna Lal (already dead) for renewal of lease which had expired in March, 2013. Mohammed Saleem who was in occupation of the shop informed the Cantonment Board on 05.07.2013 of the death of Munna Lal the original allottee, and of his having inherited the lease on basis of a registered Will. The Respondents also issued a letter on 31.1.2014 showing their willingness for consideration of renewal of lease but later on changed their mind as the proposal of the Cantonment Board was shot down by the Principal Director Defence Estates on 24.10.2014. Consequently, the Board also passed a resolution on 01.11.2014 for auction of all shops where the leases had expired.

5. The respondent nos.6 and 7 issued a letter dated 29.06.2013 to the petitioner for renewal of lease which had expired. Thereafter several correspondence took place between Mohd. Saleem and the Cantt Board showing willingness for consideration of lease renewal by the Cantt Board. However, the Cantt Board Resolution was not accepted by the Principal Director, Defence Estates, Central Command. The matter of renewal of lease remained pending. The respondent no.5 without declaring the petitioner no.2 as unauthorized occupant of the shop from a particular date, issued notice under sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.P.E. Act”). The said notice was issued only on 13.02.2015 giving five days’ time instead of seven days’ time to submit reply latest by 18.02.2015.

6. Mohammed Saleem submitted his reply and his willingness to clear all dues for consideration of renewal of lease in his name. He even deposited rent during the pendency of the proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1971. An amount of Rs.17,386 was also demanded as damages by the respondent through notice dated 26.11.2018 which was deposited through cheque which was returned inexplicably by the respondent no.5 who passed an order of eviction on 30.07.2019 and also for payment of damages.

7. Mohd. Saleem being aggrieved filed an Appeal bearing Misc. Civil Appeal No.194 of 2019 before the District Judge, Lucknow in the P.P.E. Act. Initially, an order of maintenance of status quo was passed while admitting t