- (1.) Alleging discrimination and bias against the Estate Officer, order of 20th July, 2010 evicting the petitioner from 1382.26 sq.ft. space on 7th floor of Bank of Baroda building at 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject premises) was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by preferring a statutory appeal under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which stands dismissed vide impugned order of 14th December, 2011. Undisputed facts as noted in the impugned order are that petitioner's lease on the subject premises was last extended with effect from 1st June, 1986 for a period of five years and vide respondent's Communication of 22nd January, 1990, petitioner was called upon to clear the arrears of lease money, due since July, 1988. Having failed to clear the arrears of Rs.21,68,399.52 p., 'notice to quit' of 23rd May, 2006 was served by the respondent - bank upon the petitioner, who had responded to it, by expressing inability to clear the arrears as the petitioner's company was under Board For Industrial & Financial Reconstruction proceedings. It is not in dispute that no fresh Lease Deed was executed after the expiry of the lease on 31st May, 1991. The proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 initiated against the petitioner-company, resulted in passing of the Eviction Order against the petitioner-company.
(2.) The grounds on which the plea of bias against the Estate Officer is based stands noted in paragraph no: 6 of the impugned order, which negates this plea while threadbare dealing with the grounds upon which plea of bias was based. On the plea of bias, the findings returned in the impugned order are contained in paragraph no: 10, 11 and 17 of the impugned order, which are as under:- 10. The proceedings had commenced on 1.7.2006. The impugned order was passed on 20.7.2010. Therefore, it had taken almost 4 years for the Estate Officer to pass an Eviction Order. Had R-1 filed a civil suit to recover the premises, the same would have been decided by the civil Court in a shorter period than the one consumed by the Estate Officer. The appellant had been allowed to amend WS on three occasions. More than 20 interlocutory applications had been filed. 11. The denial of right to cross-examine the witness of R-1 will have to be seen in the contest of the pleadings. If the parties had admitted facts, no prejudice had been caused to the appellant. In any case, the appellant has not shown as to what prejudice had been caused to it because of denial of the cross-examination. The proceedings under the Public Premises Act are summary in nature. 17. I have considered the submissions. Before I proceed further, I would like to mention that the learned Estate Officer had, on the basis of the averments made by the parties, framed specific issues. Since the Estate Officer had taken into account the pleadings of the parties, therefore, the order dated 23.6.2010 vide which the request of the appellant to permit the cross-examination of witness of Respondent No. 1 was declined, did not cause any prejudice to the appellant. I am also taking into account only the admitted facts to dispose of these appeals.
(3.) The same very grounds which were raised to allege bias against the Estate Officer, were reiterated at the hearing of this petition, which are as under:- A) He did not permit the appellant to cross examine witness of the Respondent No. 1. He has referred the order dated 23.6.2010. B) The arguments before the Estate Officer had commenced on 17/7/2010. No oral arguments had been advanced on behalf of R1, thus there was no occasion for the appellant to meet the contentions of R1. The arguments were concluded on 19/7/2010. Respondent No. 2 (in short R-2) was not a person having legal background. He is only a General Manager. However, he pronounced the judgment running into 17 pages on 20/7/2010, touching all the aspects of the matter. C) The copy of the judgment was delivered to the appellant only on 29/7/2010, therefore, it can be said that the judgment was not ready till that date. D) R2 had been transferred on 20/7/2010 and had joined his new place of posting on 21/7/2010. This has been revealed in reply to the queries made by the appellant to the department under the RTI Act. In the reply it has been clarified by the Department that R2 was transferred on 20/7/2010 and had joined the Mumbai office on 21/7/2010. He (R2) has since retired on 31/8/2010. His successor had taken over the charge on 20/7/2010 (in the afternoon) although he had been relieved from his earlier post on 3/7/2010. E) Though this appeal was filed on 30/7/2010 yet R1 had filed the caveat on 29/7/2010. F) Time had been sought by the appellant to cite judgments. However R2 had given little time to cite the judgments. G) No opportunity was afforded to counsel for the appellant to distinguish the judgment of R1.;