Judgment LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. 1. By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged a certified proceeding in the following facts and circumstances. He is the proprietor of a hotel running in the town of Patna and also executes catering work outside the hotel premises. According to the case made out in the writ application, a building belonging to the State Government, situate on the Gardiner Road (Patna), is used as Legislature Club for the benefit of the members of the Bihar Legislature. The Club is managed by a Club Committee appointed by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Committee appoints a caterer for the canteen attached to the Club for the benefit of the members of the Bihar Legislature. In 1958, the then Secretary of the Legislature Club Committee appointed the petitioner as the catering contractor of the canteen. The petitioner started the work on 1-11-1958 and continued the service till July, 1964. The petitioner has asserted that he had to supply meals at concessional rates which fact has been denied in the counter-affidavit. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was given some space in the Club premises for running the canteen. No rent, however, was paid at any point of time. According to the petitioners case, no rent was payable and no demand towards the same was ever made, but in the counter affidavit, it has been stated that rent had been demanded on several occasions. In 1968 the impugned certificate proceeding was started for realisation of a sum of Rs. 42,750.54 by way of rent and damages. The authorities have taken steps under the provisions of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 read with the Public Demands Recovery Act. 3. According to the petitioners case, there was no allotment within the meaning of the term as defined in the Act and, consequently, no rent is payable. So far as damages are concerned, it is said that there has been no assessment in accordance with law and nothing is, therefore, recoverable from the petitioner. The petitioner has further challenged the validity of the proceedings on the ground that the same do not conform to the mandatory requirements of law. 4. The case of the State of Bihar is that an allotment of a portion of the premises was made by a letter dated 7-11-1958 and the objection raised by the petitioner has no merit. The petitioner has further challenged the validity of the proceedings on the ground that the same do not conform to the mandatory requirements of law. 4. The case of the State of Bihar is that an allotment of a portion of the premises was made by a letter dated 7-11-1958 and the objection raised by the petitioner has no merit. The other objections have also been countered. The impugned certificate proceeding has been commenced by the letter Annexure-2 to which a legal requisition for certificate in Form 2 was attached. 5. The objections raised before the Certificate Officer, the respondent No. 3, were rejected by his order as contained in Annexure-3 and an appeal filed therefrom was dismissed by the Additional Collector, the respondent No. 4, as per his order contained in Annexure-4. A revision application was thereafter filed and dismissed by the Commissioner and a further revision by the Member, Board of Revenue. The two orders have been attached to the writ application respectively as Annexures-5 and 6. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the certificate proceeding and Annexures-2 to 6. 6. The Bihar Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 was passed in 1956 to provide for collection of rents from persons in occupation of Government premises and for their eviction. In the present case, Ss.5, 6 and 7 which deal with the collection of rent and damages are relevant. They are in the following terms :- "5. Power to recover damages : (1) Where any person is in unauthorised occupation of any Government premises, the competent authority may, in the prescribed manner, assess such damages on account of the use and occupation of the premises as it may deem fit, and may, by notice served by registered post or in such manner as may be prescribed, order that person to pay the damages within such time as may be specified in the notice. (2) Where any person in occupation of any Government premises commits such acts of waste as are likely to affect materially, the value or utility of the premises, the competent authority may, by notice served by registered post or in such other manner as may be prescribed, order that person to pay such damages as may be assessed by such authority within such time as may be specified in the notice : Provided that, before assessing damages under Sub-S. (1) or (2), the competent authority shall communicate to the person concerned the grounds on which it is proposed to make such assessment and require him to show cause within a month why assessment should not be made. (3) If any person refuses or fails to pay the damages within the time specified in the notice, the damage may be recovered as arrears of land revenue" "6. Notice of demand for rents not paid - (1) Where an arrear of rent is payable by any person for occupation of Government premises, the competent authority may at any time after thirty days from the date on which the rent accrued due, serve or cause to be served upon the person liable a notice of demand stating the name of the person, the amount payable by him and the Government premises in respect of which it is due. (2) The notice of demand shall be signed by the competent authority." "7. Recovery of rent. : If the arrears of rent for which notice of demand has been served are not paid to the competent authority within thirty days from the date of the service of the notice or such extended period as the competent authority may allow, such arrears with all costs of recovery shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue". 7. The persons from whom money has to be realised in lieu of their occupation of Government premises are divided in two categories; those who occupy the premises on allotment as defined in S.2, and those who are said to be in unauthorised occupation. Sec. 5 deals with the persons in unauthorised occupation and provides for the assessment of damages as well as for their recovery. Sec. 6 provides for demand of the arrears of rent from persons in occupation after allotment and Section 7 with the recovery of non payment. Sec. 5 deals with the persons in unauthorised occupation and provides for the assessment of damages as well as for their recovery. Sec. 6 provides for demand of the arrears of rent from persons in occupation after allotment and Section 7 with the recovery of non payment. The expression allotment has been given special meaning by Sec.2(a) of the aforesaid Act which is in the following terms : "2(a) allotment means the grant, in writing, by or on behalf of the State Government, of a right of use and occupation of any Government premises to any person does not include a grant by way of lease",; By the definition of rent in Sec.2(f) of the Act, it is referable to an allottee. The occupation by any person either without any allotment or after expiry of one month from the date on which an allotment is cancelled under Sec.3 is unauthorised occupation within Sec.2(g). Therefore, it follows that before steps for recovery of rent are taken, it must be shown that the occupier was in possession of the Government premises in pursuance of an allotment; and damages under S.5(3) can be recovered only after an assessment of the same under Sub-Sec. (1) or (2) of S.5 after giving the person concerned notice and opportunity to show cause. Mr. Shreenath Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that in the present case, neither the petitioner had occupied the premises on allotment in his favour nor have the damages been assessed according to law. As mentioned in para 5 of the Commissioners order, a demand of Rs. 39980.54P as arrears of rent was made by letter dated 18-5-67 and by another notice of the same date, damages amounting to Rs. 2770.00 were also claimed. 8. In paragraph 9 of the writ application, it has been asserted that there has not been any allotment in favour of the petitioner within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and no reply thereto was attempted on behalf of the respondents in their counter affidavit, although comments have been made on several paras of the writ application. After the case was heard on three dates, it was adjourned to facilitate the State to file a supplementary counter affidavit which the State and the other contesting respondents did on 1-9-1978. In paras. After the case was heard on three dates, it was adjourned to facilitate the State to file a supplementary counter affidavit which the State and the other contesting respondents did on 1-9-1978. In paras. 7 and 23 of this affidavit, it was averred that an allotment of the premises was made by the Government in favour of the Jai Hind Hotel belonging to the petitioner and his brother, the respondent No. 11, and that this fact is established by the letter dated 7-11-1958, annexed by the writ petitioner to his application as Annexure-7 and another letter dated 9-4-1959 Annexure-A/9 to the supplementary affidavit. It is further stated that the rent was fixed under Financial Rule 45B as evidenced by the letter dated 4-12-1962 (Annexure-A/10). It has been stated both in the original counter affidavit as well as in the supplementary one that an undertaking had been given on behalf of the Management of the Jai Hind Hotel by respondent No. 11 on 18-1-1959 that reasonable rent be fixed by the Government and charges for consumption of electricity and water supply would be paid. The learned Standing Counsel during the course of his argument further relied on the findings recorded by the Certificate Officer and other authorities against the petitioner. 9. The petitioner had admittedly remained in possession of the premises in question from 1-11-1958 to 30-7-1964 for which rent is being claimed at a rate fixed by the Government under the Financial Rule referred to in the supplementary counter affidavit. 10. The point is as to whether the petitioner occupied the premises on an allotment within the meaning of the aforesaid Act. The definition of the term as quoted above, makes it abundantly clear that it has not been used in, the Act in its ordinary grammatical meaning. It is only after the conditions mentioned in Sec.2(a) are shown to have been complied with that it can be held that there has been an allotment. This restricted meaning given to the expression does not show the occupier to escape the liability of paying occupation rent, for, the procedure laid down in Sec. 5 of the Act takes care of all other cases. It is only a question of assessment of the amount with notice to the person concerned, before the steps for realisation can be taken. It is only a question of assessment of the amount with notice to the person concerned, before the steps for realisation can be taken. The first requirement of an allotment is a grant in writing and the question is as to whether the letter dated 17-11-1958 (Annexure-7) satisfies it. 11. The letter Annexure-7 was written by the Deputy Secretary, P.W.D., to the Executive Engineer, Central Division, P.W.D. Patna, stating, that it had been decided that catering arrangement for the Legislature Club should be entrusted to Jai Hind Hotel. It is, therefore, mentioned that "In pursuance of this decision the following action has to be taken immediately". A large number of steps are enumerated therein to be taken immediately, but in the future. The entire premises were in possession of another caterer Marwari Hotel and a decision was taken to divide the space between the two hotels and directions were given for clear demarcation for the purpose of possession of the two caterers and for taking certain steps in that regard including installation of separate electric and water meters. Conditions 5 to 9, mentioned in the aforesaid letter, are as follows : "5. A written undertaking should be obtained from each party that they should pay reasonable rent for the Government premises to be occupied by each at rate to be fixed by Government and also charges for consumption of electricity and water supply. 6. The Government furniture in possession of the present caterer (Messrs Marwari Hotel) should be withdrawn. The new caterer should henceforth make his own arrangement with regard to furniture. 7. It is thought desirable to execute an agreement on annual rather than on monthly basis. A draft agreement should accordingly be prepared in consultation with the G.P. Patna and furnished to this department immediately for approval. 8. Rent under F.R. 45B should be calculated separately for each portion of the canteen premises to be occupied by each party as indicated above. The amounts of rents so calculated should be forwarded to this Department immediately. 9. As the next session of the Bihar Legislature is to commence from the 13th Nov. 1958 action should be taken on the lines indicated above with the utmost expedition so that the caterer may start functioning the (?) 12-11-1958 at the latest and the Legislature may (?) be put to any inconvenience". 12. 9. As the next session of the Bihar Legislature is to commence from the 13th Nov. 1958 action should be taken on the lines indicated above with the utmost expedition so that the caterer may start functioning the (?) 12-11-1958 at the latest and the Legislature may (?) be put to any inconvenience". 12. The statements in the letter, specially those in the above quoted portion, indicate that the letter merely conveyed a decision to make a grant in favour of the Proprietor of Jai Hind Hotel and did not itself constitute a grant. Many steps had to be taken before it could be said that "an allotment" within the meaning of the Act was made. A written agreement for that purpose was correctly envisaged in the seventh condition, quoted above, but it is not suggested before us that such an agreement was, ever executed. The rental itself was not fixed by Annexure-7 and even the date from which the allotment could be said to have been made was uncertain in the future and depended upon the parties taking prompt steps on the lines suggested in the letter. I must, therefore, hold that the case of the respondents about Annexure-7 making an allotment is fit to be rejected. 13. During the course of the hearing, a large number of letters were filed on behalf of the respondents as Annexures-A series and Mr. S.N. Jha, learned Standing Counsel, suggested that an allotment should be inferred from Annexures-A/8, A/9 and A/10. Annexure-A/8 contains an undertaking promising to pay rent which might be fixed by the Government and electric and water charges. It is signed by respondent No. 11 Anirudh Prasad as the Manager of the canteen on the 18th Jan. 1959. Mr. Shreenath Singh argued that the undertaking given by the respondent could not be binding on the petitioner in absence of an authority granted by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No. 11, and in any event, the undertaking which is in the following terms indicates that the rent was not fixed till then : I undertake to pay reasonable rent for the Government premises occupied by me at a rent to be fixed by Government and also charges for consumption of electricity and water supply. Yours faithfully, Sd. Anirudh Karmsheel Manager M.L.A. Club Canteen. Mr. Yours faithfully, Sd. Anirudh Karmsheel Manager M.L.A. Club Canteen. Mr. Shreenath Singh also suggested that this undertaking may be enforced against the respondent No. 11 after steps are duly taken under S.5 of the Act which have not been done so far. It was also urged that this annexure instead of proving allotment within the meaning of the Act, establishes that no allotment had been made till 18-1-59 either under Annexure-7 or Annexure-A/8. No acceptable answer has been attempted by the learned Standing Counsel to these arguments which appear to be well founded. It is true that the petitioner and respondent No. 11 are brothers but that by itself will not mean that whatever the respondent No. 11 has said or written will be binding on the petitioner in absence of an authority, either express or implied. In any event, the undertaking Annexure-A/8 falls far short of proving allotment. 14. So far Annexure-A/9 is concerned, it is a letter dated 9-4-1959 from the Executive Engineer, Central Division to the Deputy Secretary, P.W.D. stating that certain steps in accordance with Annexure-7 had been taken and para. 3 thereof is in the following terms. "3. The premises have been settled with M/s. Jai Hind Hotel and M/s. Marwari Hotel as suggested by you". This letter does not make a grant; it rather assumes that a grant had already been made. Obviously, the Executive Engineer stated about a settlement in the wide and general meaning of the term. He was not concerned with the technical and narrow scope of the expression allotment and his opinion is not of much consequence. Annexure-A/10 is another letter dated 4-12-1962 from the Chief Engineer to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. saying that the standard rent had been fixed at Rs. 540.98 Np. This again shows that there could not have been any allotment earlier. 15. All other letters produced on behalf of the State were dealt with in great detail by Mr. Shreenath Singh and since no specific reliance was placed by the learned Standing Counsel on them during his argument, it is futile to deal with them in detail. Suffice it to say that none of the documents produced before this Court by the respondents leads to a different conclusion. I, therefore, hold that no allotment within the meaning of the Act was made in favour of the petitioner either by Annexure-7 or by any other document. Suffice it to say that none of the documents produced before this Court by the respondents leads to a different conclusion. I, therefore, hold that no allotment within the meaning of the Act was made in favour of the petitioner either by Annexure-7 or by any other document. S.6 of the Act, for that reason, is not attracted. 16. The amount of Rs. 42,750.54 P. which is being realised from the petitioner, is admittedly made up of two amounts, a sum of Rs. 39,980.54 P. claimed as arrears of rent and another sum of Rs. 2770.00 as damages. It has rightly not been denied on behalf of the State that the second amount by way of damages cannot be by any stretch of imagination covered by Sec. 6 of the Act. Steps under S.5 had to be taken before this amount could be realised and, admittedly, the procedure under S.5 of the Act has not been followed. No reply by the Learned Standing Counsel was attempted so far as this amount is concerned and the petitioners contention has to be allowed. 17. The result is that the entire certificate proceeding must be held to be illegal and has to be quashed. 18. Mr. Shreenath Singh raised several other questions as well, in support of this writ application, inter alia, challenging the certificate proceedings on the grounds of violation of R.7 of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Rules, 1957 and of several requirements under some of the Sections and Forms of the Public Demand Recovery Act. Since this writ application is succeeding on the grounds indicated above, I do not consider it necessary to decide other questions, and hope that if the State authorities take fresh steps for recovery of lawful dues, they will be careful in complying with all the procedural requirements in the matter before starting a certificate proceeding. 19. For the reasons mentioned above, the certificate proceeding along with the orders as contained in Annexures-3, 4 5 and 6 of the writ application are quashed and this writ application is accordingly allowed, but without costs. This judgement, however, will not prejudice the right of the State Government or its authorities to take appropriate steps under S.5 of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956, for realisation of the lawful dues. K.B.N.SINGH, J. 20 I agree.