IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24277 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sumanasa Finance Private Limited, Rep by its Managing Director, S. Laskhman Kumar, S/o. S.L. Krishna, aged about 45 years, R-26, Old Airport Road, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Airport Authority of India, Rep by its Director, Hyderabad, Airport, Hyderabad. 2 The Estates Officer, Airpoort Authority of India, Hyderabad Airport, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quash the appellate order in CMA No. 6 of 2008, dated 24-10-2008 on the ﬁle of the appellate authority-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and also declare theat the order of eviction passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No. Ref.No. AAI/HY/EO-0401/SFPL/960, dated 22-1-2008 in EO Case No. 4 of 2001 as illegal and ultravirus the provisions of the public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the activities of the petitioner at premises No. R-26, Old Airport Road, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, except in accordance with law and grant Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO The Court made the following : O R D E R: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by M/s Sumanasa ﬁnance Private Limited represented by its Managing Director, S.Lakshman Kumar for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 24.10.2008 passed in C.M.A.No.6 of 2008 on the ﬁle of appellate authority cum I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and quash and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with its activities at premises No.R-26, Old Airport Road, Bowenpally, Secunderabad except in accordance with law. 2. The background facts in a nutshell leading to ﬁling of this writ petition are: The Airport Authority of India-1st respondent granted license to the petitioner to use the premises No.R-26, Old Airport Road, Bowenpally, Secunderabad measuring 337.50 square meters to the living standards at its own costs as agreed during negotiations for a period of three years commencing from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002. The terms of the license reduced into writing. The petitioner entered the premises as a licensee and made certain modiﬁcations so as to make the premises suitable for conducting cultural and recreational activities, which include running of Oﬃcers Club. For better understanding of the nature of the relationship between the petitioner and 1st respondent in respect of the subject premises, I deem it appropriate to refer some of the terms of the documents styled as “License Agreement”. Clauses 7, 10 and 13 of the License Agreement read as under: “ 7. The licensee shall get the old barrack quarter (R-26) measuring an area of 337.5 square meters to the living standards at his own cost as agreed by him during negotiations, AAI will not be responsible in any way for the loss of property/loss of lives/loss of any kind during the lease period. The licensee will not be entitled to claim any compensation for the repairs so carried out by it.” “ 10. The licensee shall not erect, display or use any high powered electric light or any electric sky signs or other electric lights or installations for purposes of advertisement or any other type of advertisement of signboards upon the said premises without the previous permission in writing from the authority.” “ 13. The premises are and shall be deemed to be public premises as deﬁned in the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, now in force and the said Act or any other Act touching the subject that may hereafter come into force and the rules framed there under.” 3. The 2nd respondent issued notice dated 26/30-4-2001 to the petitioner under section 4 of The Public Premises (Eviction etc.) Act, 1971 (for short Act, 1971) on the ground that the petitioner violated the conditions of the agreement and carried out renovation of the building and constructed additional structures without permission from Airports authority. The grounds for eviction as stated in the notice read as under: “ You have been allotted an area of 337.5 square meters in Qtr.No.R- 26 for Oﬃcers Club and on 17.2.99 and an agreement is executed with terms and conditions specified therein. But you have violated the conditions of the agreement and carried out renovation of the building and constructed additional structures without permission from Airports Authority. In addition you have occupied an area of 7000 square meters of land for various purposes like land scaping etc. unauthorisedly. This action is in complete violation of condition of the agreement. Now, therefore, in pursuance of sub-section (1) of the Act, I hereby call upon you to show cause on or before the 7-5-2001 why such an order of eviction should not be made. And in pursuance of clause (b)(11) of sub-section (2) of section (4), I also call upon you to appear before me in person or through a duly authorized representative capable to answer all material questions connected with the matter along with the evidence which you intend to produce in support of the cause shown, on 7.5.2001 at 11 A.M for personal hearing. In case, you fail to appear on the said date and time, the case will be decided ex-parte.” 4. The petitioner submitted explanation to the notice on 7.5.2001 and 17.6.2002. The petitioner admits its possession as a licensee over the premises in the explanation submitted by it on 7.5.2001. It contended in the explanation-dated 17.6.2002 that permission has been sought for renovation of the said building to create living space to facilitate its members. For better appreciation I may refer the relevant portion of the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 17-6-2002, which reads as under: “ At this juncture with the evidence so clear, Airport Authority of India shall see the good of our occupation in the said premises especially, since, we have been time and again praying Airports Authority to visualize the reality that we have been allotted the premises to run a Recreation Club (which is a long term business) after our proposal was accepted by the Airports Authority. All the renovation was done under your vigilance, all the concerned oﬃcers visited / visiting to the premises and in regular intervals in our communication we have been informing our climbing investments in the development of the premises.” 5. The 2nd respondent proceeded to pass orders under section 5 of the Act, 1971. The petitioner ﬁled an appeal being C.M.A.No.100 of 2002 before the appellate authority i.e. Principal District Judge, R.R. District. The said appeal came to be allowed on 10.8.2004 remanding the matter back to the 2nd respondent with a direction to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The order of 2nd respondent came to be set aside on the short ground that the 2nd respondent did not assign any reasons. The order passed by the appellate authority came to be assailed by the petitioner herein before this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.24076 of 2004. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 23.12.2004 reserving the liberty to the petitioner to urge all the grounds available to him in law before the primary authority. On remand the 2nd respondent heard the parties and proceeded to pass orders under sections 5(1) and 7(2)(2-A) of the Act, 1971 on 22.2.2005. The petitioner ﬁled an appeal being C.M.A.No.24 of 2005 assailing the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.2.2005. The appellate authority set aside the order of the Estate Oﬃcer on the ground that 2nd respondent proceeded beyond the scope of the order of remand passed by the appellate authority in C.M.A.No.100 of 2002 and directed the 2nd respondent to pass separate orders, one under sections 5(1) and the other under section 7(2) of the Act, 1971. for better appreciation I may refer the relevant portion of the order of the appellate authority in C.M.A.No.24 of 2005, which reads as under: “ …If the Estate Oﬃcer passed separate orders one u/s 5(1) and one u/s 7(1) and (2) appellate might have got an opportunity to challenge those orders by making use of the provisions provided under public premises eviction of unauthorized occupants Act, 1971. As he passed a common order both under section 5(1) and S.7(1) and (2), appellant has no other alternative except approaching the court and ﬁling this appeal by challenging the order passed by the Estate Oﬃcer. Though the appellant is not entitled to stick on to the premises after expiry of the licensee period in view of the decision reported in ALD 2006(1) 31 because of the orders passed by the Estate Oﬃcer beyond the scope of the remand order and as he passed the orders both u/s 5(1) and 7(1) and (2) of Public Premises Eviction of unauthorized occupants Act, 1971 and as the orders passed u/s 7(1) and (2) is not reasoned order, the appeal ﬁled by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. In the result, the order under appeal is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Estate Oﬃcer with a direction to pass two separate orders one as per the remand order made by Principal District Judge in C.M.A.No.100 of 2002 and another u/s 7(1) and (2) by giving reasons as per the conditions prescribed under R.8 of the Premises of Eviction of unauthorized occupants Act, 1971. I direct both parties to bear their own costs.” 6. The remand order came to be questioned by 1st respondent by ﬁling W.P.No.27225 of 2006. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 20.11.2007 conﬁrming the order of remand. The 2nd respondent pursuant to the remand order passed in C.M.A.No.24 of 2005 passed orders afresh under section 5(1) of the Act and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. The order passed by the 2nd respondent came to be assailed by the petitioner before the appellate authority cum Ist Additional District Judge, R.R. District in C.M.A.No.6 of 2008. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal by an order dated 24.10.2008 conﬁrming the order of eviction passed by the 2nd respondent. The order of the appellate authority is assailed in this writ petition. 7. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri. E.Madan Mohan, takes notice on behalf of 1st respondent. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered the premises legally and made permanent constructions and thus the licence granted to him became irrevocable by virtue of Sec.60(b) of Easements Act. He further submits that the primary authority and the appellate authority failed to appreciate the material brought on record and thereby erred in ordering eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. A further submission has been made that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the authority who have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes and therefore the order passed by the 2nd respondent purportedly exercising jurisdiction under the Act, 1971 is ex-facio illegal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in TAVVA LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO V. SANKARANARAYANA SARMA [1] and the decision of Madras High Court in PUNNAMMA V. VENKATA SUBBA RAO[2]. 10. In the ﬁrst cited decision the plaintiﬀ therein permitted the defendant to occupy an open site. Subsequently, the defendant put up constructions. The plaintiﬀ pleaded that the defendant agreed to pay monthly rent in place of ground rent. The plaintiﬀ pressed into service a document, which was exhibited as Ex.P1 to prove the relationship of the parties as lessor and lessee. The trial Court disbelieved the documents on which the plaintiﬀ relied and dismissed the suit. The document in the suit came to be conﬁrmed in the ﬁrst appeal as well as in the second appeal. In the second cited decision the Madras High Court held that a license is not determined by forfeiture even if licensor’s title is denied by the licensee. 11. Learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent submits that the parties are governed by the terms of the agreement which are reduced into writing. Clause 13 of the licence agreement is explicit that the premises are and shall be deemed to be public premises as deﬁned in the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971. He also refers to S.2(e)(1) of the Act, 1971, which reads as under: “ 2(e)(1): any premises belonging to, or taken on lease on requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes any such premises which have been placed by that Government, whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980 under the control of the Secretariat of either Houses of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that Secretariat.” He further submits that at no point of time the petitioner pleaded in his explanation submitted to the show cause notice that the license became irrevocable by virtue of Sec.60(b) of Easements Act. A further submission is made that what is allotted to the petitioner is the premises and under the terms of the agreement the petitioner has to make it suitable for the living standards at its own cost and therefore even if any modiﬁcations are made by the petitioner they are only to make the premises suitable for living standards. He relied on the decision of this court in REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, SANGAREDDY v. H.S.SUDHINDRA ARAS[3]. 12. I have gone through the terms of the license agreement. A plain reading of the terms of the agreement indicates that the petitioner has to make necessary modiﬁcations to the premises in order to make beﬁtting to the living standards at its own costs. Merely because the petitioner made certain additions to it, it does not alter the nature of the relationship between the parties. Therefore, I am of the view that the relationship between the petitioner and 1st respondent is only of a licensor and a licensee. The period of licence has been expired in the year 2002. The petitioner continues to be in occupation after the expiry of the period of license. The 2nd respondent has considered this aspect and proceeded to order eviction of the petitioner. I do not see any ﬂaw in the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Estate Oﬃcer as well as the appellate authority. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks some time for vacating the premises. Keeping in view the purpose for which the permission has been granted to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to grant two months time for the petitioner to vacate the premises in his occupation subject to its placing an undertaking before the 2nd respondent-Estate Oﬃcer within a week from today. 7th November, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.24277 OF 2008 7TH NOVEMBER 2008. [1] 1955 AN.W.R. (1) 708 [2] AIR 1953 MADRAS 456 [3] 2006(1) ALD 31