JUDGMENT :

(Alok Mathur, J.)

1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Lucknow thereby dismissing the appeal against the order passed by the prescribed authority under the Public Premises Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act of 1971’) and also the order dated 03.10.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Estate Officer, Central Bank of India, Zonal Officer, Bhopal.

2. The facts necessary for deciding present controversy shown any unnecessary details are that the respondent, Central Bank of India, is the landlord of the premises situated at 73, Hazratganj, Lucknow and Jawahar Lal Bhargawa, predecessor in interest of the petitioner was the tenant of the north eastern portion of the ground floor of the said premises. In 1976, the respondent Bank had moved an application for release of the premises in the tenancy of Jawahar Lal Bhargawa before the prescribed authority under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation and Letting and Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 being in urgent need of the premises. The said application was dismissed by order dated 01.09.1976.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the respondent-bank. During the pendency of the appeal, certain amendments came into effect in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and an application was moved on behalf of Jawahar Lal Bhargava that the remedy for eviction lay before the prescribed authority under the said Act and consequently on the said assertion, the appeal was dismissed. The suit for eviction was also filed in the Court of Small Causes Act, Lucknow wherein SCC Suit No. 583/1980 was registered, the same was also dismissed on 31.03.1982.

4. Subsequently, Jawahar Lal Bhargava shifted to Delhi and also transferred the said premises to the petitioner without knowledge and consent of the respondent-bank. It is also the claim of the respondent that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 01.04.1997 to 06.07.1999 and had also terminated the tenancy by giving a notice dated 03.06.1999, but the tenant did not vacate the said premises on the expiry of the period provided for in notice and accordingly moved an application under the Public Premises Eviction Act for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenants have become unauthorized occupants as defined in the Act.

5. The prescribed authority while allowing the application filed by the respondent-bank has considered the fact that the respondents have terminated the tenancy by giving a notice dated 03.06.1999 and after expiry of 30 days from the said notice the tenants have become unauthorised occupants.

6. Contesting the aforesaid claim of the bank, the tenants on the other hand had stated that they had already paid the rent in advance by means of cheque and also that respondent bank is not in urgent or bonafide need of the said premises and prayed to prescribed authority to discharge the notice issued by the Estate Officer. The respondent bank on the other hand had stated that it had not accepted or encashed the cheque and it has no intention of receiving the amount towards rent of the disputed premises and mere receiving of the cheque/pay orders does not amount to acceptance of the rent and consequently prayed that the tenants be declared unauthorised occupants and evicted from the tenanted premises.

7. The prescribed authority also did not accept the contention of the tenants that notice in the present case had not been given by the Estate Officer to Mr. Ram Bachani (petitioner) who is running the business in the name of M/S A. James & Company. He held that Mr. Ram Bachani had not claimed the interest in the premises even after having knowledge of the proceedings as he has remained present on 03.08.2002 i.e. the date of arguments and also signed the order-sheet and no objection were raised by him with regard to issuance of notices under Section 4 & 7 of the Public