( 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 licen