- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 3.1.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.8554 of 2011) filed by the appellant for quashing of the notice dated 24.2.2011 and the order dated 8.4.2011 passed under the provisions of Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PP Act') and for subsequent proceedings under the PP Act, has been dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- with the observation that the challenge made by the appellant of the notice and the proceedings pending before the Estate Officer is untenable because the Estate Officer was fully competent to decide on every kind of objection that the appellant had placed before the Court in the said writ petition, viz. (i) the competence of the NTPC to prosecute the petition for alleged lack of Board's sanction; (ii) the lack of bona fides and good faith in seeking for eviction and prosecuting the case against the petitioner; (iii) the occupation of the petitioner does not amount to unauthorized possession. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order.
(2.) Before this Court also, the learned counsel raised three points which were raised before the learned Single Judge, i.e., firstly that after filing of the writ petition before this Court, the respondents had sought for a reference to an Arbitrator and on the said reference the matter has been referred to the arbitration to decide all disputes other than the issue of eviction before the Arbitrator, therefore, the proceedings before the Estate Officer under the PP Act cannot continue. Secondly, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others Versus Union of India and others, 1986 AIR(SC) 872 the property in question, which was allowed to be used by the respondents for construction of a school, does not come under the definition of Public Premises, therefore, the action for eviction from the said property does not lie under the PP Act. Thirdly, that the lease agreement was not legally terminated, and as such the appellant could not have been said to be in unauthorized occupation of the property, therefore, the action of its eviction under the PP Act is not tenable. It has also been argued that the action of eviction initiated by the respondents is based on bias and mala-fides as a teacher of the school, who happened to be the wife of a senior officer of the respondent-corporation, was punished by the management which led to the proposed ouster of the appellant-society.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned order reveals that all these contentions have been rightly dealt with by the learned Single Judge and the same do not require any interference. Undisputedly, in the present case, after the notice issued to the appellant by the Estate Officer under the PP Act, not only the appellant had appeared before the Estate Officer but also subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer, and sought time for filing reply to the notice on several occasions. After filing the reply, the appellant had participated in the proceedings by cross-examining the witnesses produced by the respondent-corporation. On 4.5.2011 when the matter was pending for cross-examination of PW3, the appellant moved a reference for arbitration which was rejected. Thereafter, on 6.5.2011 the appellant had given a list of witnesses, and sought time for leading evidence. The matter was adjourned thrice for 7.5.2011, 9.5.2011 and 17.5.2011 on one pretext or the other, and in the meantime, the appellant approached this Court by filing the writ petition.;