NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004718

Page 1 of 20

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of order: 4^th November 2022

+

CM(M) 552/2022 & CM APPL. 26949/2022

M/S EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advocate

(Through VC) with Mr. A. S. Mathur,

Ms. Priya Singh, Mr. Sarvpriya and

Mr. Umang Katariya, Advocates

versus

UCO BANK

.... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Rajesh Rattan, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

O R D E R

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1.

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has

been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

case.”

2.

A perusal of the record reveals that the following course of events

Digitally Signed By:GAURAV

SHARMA

Signing Date:09.11.2022

17:36:43

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004718

Page 2 of 20

have culminated into the controversy before this Court in the instant

petition:

a.

The respondent had filed an Application under Section 4 of the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

(hereinafter “PP Act”) seeking eviction of the petitioner from the

premises in question situated at 5 Parliament Street, New Delhi-

110001. The respondent has its offices situated at the premises, a

portion of which, i.e., second floor admeasuring 5471 sq. ft, was in

the occupation of the petitioner.

b.

The respondent issued a notice of termination dated 25^th May

2007 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

whereby it terminated the monthly tenancy of the petitioner with

respect to the premises and sought its eviction on the ground that the

premises was required by the respondent for its own banking use.

The petitioner also furnished its reply to the notice on 18^th August

2007. c.

Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner

by the Estate Officer, UCO Bank, on 19^th September 2008, under

Section 4 of the PP Act asking the petitioner to show cause as to why

an order of eviction should not be made against it. The petitioner

replied to the Show Cause Notice on 17^th November 2008 and sought

the recalling of the Notice on inter alia the grounds that, the

concerned Estate Officer had a direct and personal interest in the

eviction of the petitioner from the premises since he was also the

Digitally Signed By:GAURAV

SHARMA

Signing Date:09.11.2022

17:36:43

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004718

Page 3 of 20

Deputy General Manager of the respondent Bank, the petitioner had

been operating on the premises in question since 1958 and had been

paying regular rent to the respondent, the termination notice and the

Show Cause Notice suffered from infirmities.

d.

On 16^th September 2013, the concerned Estate Officer passed a

detailed and comprehensive order under Section 5 (1) of the PP Act

declaring the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant of the premises

in question, in pursuance of the terminated lease deed and non-

vacation of the premises by the petitioner thereof.

e.

Assailing the order dated 16^th September 2013, the petitioner

approached the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts,

New Delhi and vide order dated 22^nd May 2014, the order dated 16^th

September 2013 was set aside with a direction to the Estate Officer

to give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence qua the Power of

Attorney given by the respondent to PW2, Rajeev Kumar Khanna.

f.

Subsequently, the Estate Officer, on 1^st July 2021, allowed the

application on behalf of the respondent for eviction of the petitioner.

Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing PPA No.

5/2021 under Section 9 of the PP Act before the District and

Sessions Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi. The said appeal came to

be dismissed by th