The court affirmed the eviction order based on the petitioners' continual non-payment of licence fees, rejecting claims of unconstitutional statute and unproven oral agreements regarding payment reductions.

1. Petitioner No 1 (hereafter referred as petitioner - Company) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and petitioner No. 2, V. K. Khanna, is one of its Directors, Respondent No. 1, M. P. Housing Board, is a body corporate, which has been established under S.3 of the M. P. Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 , (hereafter referred as the 'Adhiniyam'), The M. P. Housing Board has constructed a six storey building on the Agra Bombay road at Indore. This building was given by the Housing Board to the petitioner company for running a hotel, known as 'Suhag Hotel' therein, on the terms and conditions contained in the agreement (Annexure - A) dated 9-1-1978.

2. During the occupation by the petitioner - Company of this building as a licensee, contravention of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement (Annexure - A), particularly those relating to payment of the licence fee was alleged by the Housing Board and not denied by the petitioner - Company. Accordingly, a notice (Annexure R - 3) dated 5-4-1982 was given by the competent authority as required by sub-sec.(2) of S.55 of the Adhiniyam, to the petitioner - company requiring it to show cause why an order of eviction be not made under sub-section (1) against it. The notice also required the petitioner to appear before the competent authority on 20-4-1982 for this purpose. However, the petitioner company merely sent a reply (Annexure R - 4) dated 6-4-1982, to the competent authority stating that rent was being paid regularly every month, relying on the particulars of payment of rent at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month, instead of Rs.50,000/- per month specified in tine agreement, for the months of January, February and March 1982, given therein. The petitioners thereafter did not even care to appear before the competent authority, or to show cause against eviction on 20-4-1982 or any other date, as required by the notice. The competent authority then made an order (Annexure - C) dated 20-5-1982, under sub-section (1) of S.55 of the Adhiniyam pursuant to the above notice, directing the petitioner's eviction from the aforesaid building and requiring it to deliver vacant possession of the building within one month. Ultimately, the petitioner was evicted from the building on 16-4-1983 in pursuance of the order (Annexure - C) dated 20-5-1982, when the petitioner failed to vacate the building by resort to sub-section (5) of S.55 of the Adhiniyam, which permits forcible eviction in such a situation. Annexure - F dated 16-4-1983 is an order made by the competent authority invoking this power. This led to the filing of this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, challenging the action of the Housing Board.

3. At the hearing of the petition Shri Y. S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, confined the relief only to challenging the order of eviction even though in the petition some more reliefs relating to ancillary matters were claimed. For this reason, it is not necessary to give the particulars relating to the ancillary matter, which we are not called upon to decide and we shall confine ourselves only to the challenge made to the petitioner's eviction from the building as a consequence of the order of eviction made under S.55 (1) of the Adhiniyam.

4. It may be stated at the outset that the action for evicting the petitioner - company was taken on the ground of the petitioner's continuing default in payment of licence fee in accordance with the agreement, which enabled an order of eviction to be made under S.55 (1) of the Adhiniya