Delhi High Court Union Of India vs S.M. Aggarwal And 31 Ors. on 20 April, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995IIAD(DELHI)293, 1995(33)DRJ371 JUDGMENT D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Union of India aggrieved by the order dated 29 June 1994 of the first respondent, Additional District Judge, Delhi, passed under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). By this order the first respondent remanded the matter back to the Estate Officer for fresh decision under section 5 of the Act. As a matter of fact, it is the second time that the first respondent remanded the matter back to the Estate Officer under the Act. Respondents 2 to 32 are shopkeepers admittedly occupying public premises in the lane leading to the Delhi High Court from the Wellesely Road (now Dr. Zakir Husssain Marg) and connecting the same to the Shershah Suri Marg. After proceedings were initiated under the Act against these shopkeepers, the Estate Officer passed an order on 30 November 1993 under subsection (1) of section 5 of the Act directing them to vacate the public premises as provided therein. These shopkeepers appealed under section 9 of the Act. The first respondent by his brief order dated 18 January 1994 disposed of the appeals filed by the shopkeepers. He noted after examining the records that there were initially 16 shops which were given on license basis which licenses subsisted till 198081. He also noted the submission of the counsel of the Union of India that thereafter 16 shops were illegally bifurcated/trifurcated into 33 shops which were now in occupation of the present shopkeepers. Learned Additional District Judge noted that perusal of the record showed that "the appellants were denied justice not only by learned Estate Officer but by their own counsel who filed joint reply on behalf of 33 occupants without pleading any facts regarding the status of occupation of the appellants/shopkeepers". He also noted that the Estate Officer did not grant effective hearing to the appellants nor did he decide the controversy raised by the respondents. It was also noted that on one date of hearing the lawyers were on strike. On this basis the learned Additional District Judge passed the following order reminding the matter back to the Estate Officer : "4.INview of the aforesaid I am of the considered opinion that the matter needs re adjudication in the light of the submissions made by Shr Ramalingam and the record submitted by the department before the learned Estate Officer. I, therefore, accept the appeals and set aside the impugned orders and remand the case for fresh adjudication according to law by the learned Estate Officer. The appellants are directed to appear before the learned Estate Officer on 2.2.94. The appellants are afforded fresh opportunity to submit separate reply concerning their individual status in the premises in question. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Estate Officer. " (2) The matter was readjudicated by the Estate Officer who passed orders on 16 May 1994 again directing eviction of the shopkeepers, the respondents 2 to 32, under subsection (1) of section 5 of the Act. The respondents appealed and by the impugned order dated 29 June 1994 the learned Additional District Judge remanded the matter back second time. This time he gave the following directions : "IN view of the aforesaid I accept all the aforesaid 31 appeals consolidated with P.P.A. No. 72/94 and set aside the impugned eviction orders passed against the appellants and remand these cases for fresh adjudication according to law in the light of the observations made herein before. The appellants are directed to appear before the learned Estate Officer on 15.7.94 at 2.30 pm and will file their replies to the showcause notice under section 4 of the Act Along with the applications seeking production of certain records for effective crossexamination of the official witnesses on the dates fixed for evidence." (3) Aggrieved from this order the Union of India has filed this petition. (4) As noted above, there is no doubt that the premises in question are public premises within the meaning of clause (e) of section 2 of the Act. It was stated at the bar by Mr. Sengh, learned counsel for the Union of India, that no rent is being paid by any of the occupants since 198081 who had been allotted the shops earlier and none of them are occupants who were inducted in the shops either bifurcating and trifurcating the same. A person is in 'unauthorised occupation' of public premises, under clause (g) of section 2 of the Act, who is in occupation of the same without the authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfe