D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The application for substitution is allowed. The applicants may be substituted as petitioners. The matter is very old after the substitution is allowed the matter is taken up for hearing. By an order dated 10.9.1984, the prescribed authority had dismissed the application for eviction of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner from the public premises on account of unauthorised occupation. The case made out by the State in the said application was that the petitioner was the District Inspector of Schools and was accommodated in the premises which was taken on lease by the State from the owner. The said eviction was rejected on the ground that the premises having taken on lease by the State does not fall within the definition of public premises. The appeal court on an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 265 of 1984 had held that the prescribed authority had failed to appreciate the definition of public premises and did not consider the materials and evidence on record and, therefore, the appeal court had remanded the matter. Sri Sushil Harkauli, learned counsel seeks to press an application for addition of parties respondents on the ground that they are the owners of the property. In my view, the said application is misconceived. If he has any remedy he may pursue the same in other forum. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow the said application, for the reasons following.
(2.) U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 22 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the said Act, was promulgated with the subject "to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises". Public premises are those as defined in Section 2 (e). Unauthorised occupants are those as mentioned in Section 2 (g). For the purpose of eviction of unauthorised occupant from public premises, a machinery has been provided in the said Act by means of appointment of prescribed authority under Section 3 of the said Act. A procedure for eviction is guided or governed by Section 4 of the said Act. Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 4 as are relevant for our present purpose provides that: "(1) If the prescribed authority, either of its own motion or on application or report received on behalf of the State Government of the corporate authority, is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the prescribed authority shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made." * * * (4) Where the prescribed authority knows or has reasons to believe that any person are in occupation of the premises, then..... he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person....."
(3.) Thus, the procedure contemplated under Section 4 relates (i) a public premises, (ii) for eviction of unauthorised occupants, (iii) by the prescribed authority either, (iv) on its own motion or, (v) on application or report on behalf of State Government or a corporate authority, (vi) if it is of opinion that such person is in unauthorised occupation, (vii) after issuing notice to show cause to all persons liable to be evicted. Where these tests are satisfied, the order of eviction of unauthorised occupant of a public premises is passed under Section 5 after the prescribed authority, upon cause being shown by such person, is satisfied that the person is in anauthorised occupation of the public premises.;