The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Act no. 40 of 1971 in evicting unauthorized occupants from public premises, emphasizing the need for proper reasoning and analysis in judicial decisions.

ORDER :

Lok Pal Singh, J.

1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 29.03.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Dehradun in P.P. Appeal no. 76 of 2004, Diljit Singh vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, whereby the said appeal was allowed and the order dated 07.06.2004, passed by the Estate Officer in case no. M-4 of 1986, LIC vs. Diljit Singh Bindra, was set aside.

2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that Life Insurance Corporation of India (here-in-after referred to as LIC) is the owner of the suit property viz. shop no. 2, Himalaya House, The Mall, Mussoorie. The City Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the suit property in favour of the respondent and inducted the respondent as tenant over said property, without given an opportunity to the petitioner. Respondent became the tenant of said shop at a rent of Rs. 703.12 per annum. The petitioner issued notice to the respondent to pay rent, but for a long time the rent was not paid. However, the City Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no authority to allot the premises in question to the respondent, but as this property was allotted and possession was delivered to the respondent, the petitioner admitted the respondent as tenant and started receiving the rent from him. Subsequently, the respondent did not pay the rent, despite several notices issue to him. Then, petitioner was constrained to terminate the tenancy of the respondent by issuing notice dated 30.08.1993 and asked him to vacate the premises in question and handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the petitioner. Respondent neither paid the rent nor handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the premises in question to the petitioner. Having considered the possession of the respondent unauthorized, the petitioner filed an application on 04.02.1986 before the Estate Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act no. 40 of 1971').

3. Admittedly, LIC is owner and landlord of the shop in question which is a public premises within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act no. 40 of 1971.

4. Respondent was tenant of the shop no. 2 at an agreed rent of Rs. 703.12 Paise (including water tax @ Rs. 78.12 Paise) per annum. The tenancy of the respondent was terminated by legal notice dated 30.08.1993. The respondent did not vacate the premises even after expiry of notice period and, as such, after expiry of notice period, the respondent has become unauthorised occupant of Public Premises. LIC filed the case before the Estate Officer seeking following reliefs:

(1) Eviction of the respondent from the public premises as described in schedule.

(2) Order against the respondent to pay rent in arrears of Rs. 549.01p.

(3) Order against the respondent to pay damages of Rs. 8420/- from 13.10.1983 to 31.01.1986 for unauthorised use of premises and future damages @ Rs. 10/- per day till vacation of the premises. Full cost of the case.

5. The Estate Officer issued notice to the respondent, invited his objection/written statement. In his objection, the respondent stated that he is the tenant over the demised property and is not in unauthorized occupation. Having considered the evidence adduced by the parties, the Estate Officer after framing the points of determination and taking the evidence of the parties has recorded the finding that the premises in question is a public premises, the tenancy of respondent stand terminated by legal notice dated 30.08.1993, after expiry of the period of notice. The respondent neither paid the rent nor vacated the premises in question, therefore, he is in unauthorized possession of the demised property. The order of eviction was passed directing the respondent to vacate the demised property within the given period and he was directed to pay the arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits.

6. Feeling aggrieve