The lack of a finding on the issue of the petitioner's tenancy at the time of resumption was crucial in determining the petitioner's status as an unauthorised occupant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present writ petition and the connected petitions have been filed against identical orders. In the present case, challenge has been raised to the order dated 14.05.2001 passed by the Estate Officer, Meerut Cantt. under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.P. Act'). Further, challenge has been raised to the order dated 14.05.2002 passed by the Appeal Court, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order. Thus, the petitioner has been declared an unauthorised occupant in the premise popularly known as Royal Hotel, Mall Road, Meerut Cantt (hereinafter referred to as the 'premise in question').

3. The petitioner claims execution of an Old Grant in favour of one Lieutenant Colonel A.M.L. Price who inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the premise in question, in the year 1976 that too prior to the cut-off date 05.07.1976 prescribed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act').

4. The petitioner further states, the said grant was resumed on 17.04.1980 by the Union of India. That matter was initially challenged by Lieutenant Colonel A.M.L. Price and Mr. Harold Sarikes, claiming to be the executor of the registered will of Mr. J.A.W. Price. This challenge was raised in Writ Petition No. 4599 of 1980. During pendency of that writ petition, Lieutenant Colonel A.M.L. Price who was then domiciled in the United Kingdom, died. It resulted in state claiming escheat over the property in question, vide its order dated 21.06.1985. Consequently, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was appointed Receiver over the property. He was directed to collect the rent etc. and to account for the same.

5. At that stage, another challenge was raised by third parties to the escheat claimed by the State. That challenge arose in Writ Petition No. 9354 of 1985. Vide common judgement dated 25.09.1996, this Court dismissed both Writ Petition Nos. 4599 of 1980 and 9354 of 1985. That judgement has attained finality.

6. Thereafter, on 05.04.2000, a notice under Section 4(2) of the P.P. Act was issued to the petitioner, seeking his eviction. Consequently, the impugned orders have been passed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged, in the first place, notice issued under Section 4 of the P.P. Act was no notice in the eyes of law inasmuch as the petitioner was a sitting tenant in the premise in question. He could never be declared, an unauthorised occupant.

8. Second, no declaration in law was made to hold the petitioner an unauthorised occupant of a public premise. In that regard, he would further submit, the premise in question became public premise only upon resumption, on 17.04.1980. That act would not relate back to the date of induction of the petitioner as a tenant in the premise and that act would not destroy the pre-existing tenancy rights created in favour of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

9. Third, to bolster his submission, it has been further submitted, the provision of Rent Act would protect the petitioner's tenancy rights and insulate the petitioner from proceedings under the P.P. Act. By virtue of the resumption made, only the landlord of the premise changed. Thus, a private person Lieutenant Colonel A.M.L. Price and persons claiming under him ceased to be landlord of the premise with effect from the date of resumption made. From that date, the petitioner became a tenant of the state. He would have to be dealt with accordingly. Yet, in no case, the petitioner could be declared an unauthorised occupant, by operation of law.

10. Coming to the impugned orders, it has been then submitted, the plea though set up in his replies dated 19.06.2000, 30.06.2000, 07.07.2000 and 20.07.200