Decided on April 02,2007

UCO BANK Respondents


- (1.) This petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, New Delhi in an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The said appeal was preferred against the order dated 08.04.2005 passed by the Estate Officer.
(2.) The premises in question is situated on the First Floor of the UCO Bank Building at 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The said premises has an area of 2405 sq. ft. The same was leased out to M/s Mitsui and Company by a lease deed dated 15.10.1970 by UCO Bank for a period of five years w.e.f. 01.10.1968 to 01.10.1973. The lease permitted induction of a sub-tenant and the petitioner [M/s Toyo Engineering (India) Ltd] was inducted as a sub-tenant by M/s Mitsui and Company. The leased expired on 01.10.1973. No further lease was executed by UCO Bank. However, it continued to accept rents. By a letter dated 17.12.1975, M/s Mitsui and Company conveyed to UCO Bank that it had authorised the petitioner to pay rent for the said premises on its behalf. A notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued by UCO Bank on 15.10.1991 and served upon M/s Mitsui and Company as well as on the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 09.12.1991 admitting that it was a sub-tenant of M/s Mitsui and Company. Thereafter, proceedings under the said Act were initiated against M/s Mitsui and Company. The Estate Officer passed an order on 20.09.2001 directing the eviction of M/s Mitsui and Company.
(3.) It so happened that both M/s Mitsui and Company as well as the petitioner preferred separate appeals against the said order dated 20.09.2001 passed by the Estate Officer. These appeals were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge by a common order dated 15.03.2003. The appeal filed by M/s Mitsui and Company was dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed on the ground that no notice under Section 4 of the said Act had been served upon the petitioner.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.