The judgment establishes the principle that violation of license conditions, including permitting the use of premises without prior consent, can lead to eviction and cancellation of the license. It also affirms the separate legal identity of a company and the limitations on lifting the corporate veil.

( 1 ) THE questions that arise for consideration in this case, inter alia, are:-

(A) whether the petitioner, a licensee in the premises in question, can be said to have permitted the premises or any part thereof for being used by any other person for any purpose whatsoever?

(B) Whether a company formed by the petitioner herself and wherein she held virually the entire share-holding would be covered under the expression "any other person"?these questions arise for determination in the context of proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner submits that she is not an "unauthorised occupant" and, therefore, the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer on 16. 10. 1990 under Section 5 of the said Act as well as the appellate judgment dated 22. 7. 1992 of the Additional District Judge confirming the order need to be set aside and quashed. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the letter dated 2. 9. 1987 whereby the license in favour of the petitioner in respect of the premises in question was cancelled.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was inducted as a licensee by the Respondents on 19. 8. 1975 by way of a License Deed executed on that date in respect of Shop No. 10, Asia House Market, New Delhi. Clauses 1, 2 and 8 of the said License Deed are as under:

"1. THE Licensee (s) shall be deemed to be bare Licensee (s) having only a personal right in the said premises and nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a demise at law of the said premises or any part thereof so as to give the Licensee (s) any interest therein.

2. THE Licence is purely temporary and the government reserve the right to revoke it at any time by giving thirty days notice without assigning any reason to the Licensee (s) of their intention to do so. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

8. THE Licensee (s) shall not permit the said premises or any part thereof being used by any other person for any purposes whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the Government and in default thereof shall be liable for ejectment. The Licensee (s) shall not introduce any partner nor shall he/they transfer possession of the premises or part thereof or otherwise carry on the business in the premises with any other person or assign, transfer, change or otherwise alienate his interest in the premises. "in November 1976, the petitioner along with her husband incorporated a company called "romica World Travel (Pvt.) Ltd. " (hereinafter referred to as "the said company" ). The petitioner and her husband together hold 97. 93% shares in the said company. The petitioner manages and is incharge of the affairs of the Company and runs its business from the premises in question from the very inception i. e. , from 1976 onwards. It is the petitioner s case that this was known to everyone including the respondents. However, no objections were raised in respect thereof at any stage prior to the issuance of a show cause notice dated 20. 7. 1987 which was issued by the Directorate of Estates. The show cause notice called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the license should not be cancelled on account of the prima facie opinion of the issuing authority that the petitioner had "sublet"1 the shop. The petitioner was called upon to show cause within 21 days and was also requested to remove the breaches, failing which, the allotment of the shop would be cancelled. Thereafter, by a letter dated 2. 9. 1987 issued by the Directorate of Estate, the license was cancelled. The ground for cancellation of the license was as under:-

"and whereas you have failed to comply with the various terms and conditions as stipulated in this Directorate letter No. DE/mkt/15 (10)74 Dated 11. 8. 1975. "by the same letter the petitioner was asked to vacate the premises at the end of month of October, 1987.

( 4 ) SINCE the premises were not vacated, notice under Section 4 was issued b