- (1.) THE State Government and its officers, who were the appellants have already withdrawn this Letters Patent Appeal. Therefore the State Government has no longer any locus standi in the matter.
(2.) HOWEVER , we find that by an interim order dated 24.11.2009 containing detailed reasons was passed in this appeal on an intervention application of one Mathura Prasad (being Interlocutory Application No. 3479 of 2009). According to that interim order prima facie finding was recorded that the said intervener was in possession of a part of the premises in question, yet all orders had been obtained by the respondent No. 1 of this appeal behind the back of the said intervener, and pursuant to such ex -parte orders the said intervener Mathura Prasad had been evicted on 20.11.2009. It is recorded in the interim order dated 24.11.2009 that the said Mathura Prasad had approached this Court on 18.11.2009, that is two days before his eviction seeking protection of his possession, but the same could not be obtained by Mathura Prasad as this Court was not able to hear him in respect of his intervention application prior to his eviction. Moreover the further findings are that, Annexure B to to the intervener's other I.A. No. 3518 of 2009 was a possession certificate. It indicated that Mathura Prasad had been evicted alleging him to be an unauthorized occupant of part of the premises. The signatures of Mathura Prasad were found on the said possession certificate. These signatures were admitted by the respondents of the appeal. No other person was mentioned in the said possession certificate, who could possibly be construed as the alleged unauthorized occupant who was being evicted.
(3.) FURTHER , the articles found in the premises while evicting the intervenor Mathura Prasad were house -hold goods of domestic use, and were not office items, and therefore prima -facie it was not merely an office which was being evicted for delivering possession to the respondent No. 1 of this appeal.;