JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner, Smt. Jamni Devi, is aggrieved by a notice dated 08.11.1976 issued to her Under the provisions of Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 155 of the Defense and Internal Security of India Rules, requiring her to remove her occupation from plot No. 91/5 Bania Bazar, Dehra Dun within fourteen days of the receipt of notice by her. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Petitioner's husband, Nandu Singh was allotted premises No. 5 located on plot No. 91/5, Bania Bazar, Debradun in the year 1955. Subsequently the Estate Officer initiated proceedings for Petitioner's eviction u/s 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and directed that she be evicted from the said plot. Aggrieved the Petitioner filed an appeal u/s 9 of the Act before the District Judge and questioned the order directing her eviction. In her appeal the Petitioner claimed that her husband had been granted permanent license by the then Commandant on 02-02-1959 and that in pursuance thereof he had built the disputed accommodation. He and his family had been residing in the said house since then. According to the Military authorities the license set up by the Petitioner was invalid inasmuch as the then Commandant had no authority to grant the same. They also claimed that the said license had subsequently been revoked and in any case possession of the Petitioner thereafter had become unauthorized and she became liable to be evicted from plot in question. 3. Learned District Judge, Dehradun found that Petitioner's husband had actually been granted a license on 02-02-1959 and the same had been acted upon for more than a decade and a half. According to him even if the said license was not valid as a permanent license, it operated as a revocable license and that there was no evidence to show that it had been so revoked. He, therefore, concluded that unless the license dated 02-02-1959 was revoked, the occupation of the Petitioner could not be termed as unauthorized. In the result he allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Estate Officer without prejudice to the case being taken up again according to law. 4. He, therefore, concluded that unless the license dated 02-02-1959 was revoked, the occupation of the Petitioner could not be termed as unauthorized. In the result he allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Estate Officer without prejudice to the case being taken up again according to law. 4. The Station Commandant then initiated the present proceedings for Petitioner's eviction Under Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 155 of Defense and Internal Security of India Rules 1971 by issuing to her a notice dated 08-11-1976. The notice mentioned that as the said property was essentially required for defense purposes she should remove her unauthorized occupation there from within fourteen days failing which she would be evicted by force, Aggrieved the Petitioner has, by means of the present petition, approached this Court for Belief Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Relevant portion of Rule 155 of the Defense and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 runs thus: 155. Eviction of unauthorized persons from public premises-(1) Where the Central Government is of opinion that any public premises as defined in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), are required for any purpose connected with the defense of India and civil defense, the public safety or interest, the efficient conduct of military operations or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community, and the Central Government is satisfied that such premises are in unauthorized occupation as defined in the Act, the Central Government may, after recording the reasons for such satisfaction make an order of eviction directing that the public premises shall be vacated by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or of any part thereof within such period as may be specified in the order. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within the period specified therein, any officer authorized by the Central Government in this behalf (hereafter in this rule referred to as the authorized officer) may evict that person from, and take possession of the public premises and may for the purpose use such force as may be necessary. (3).... (4).... (5).... (6).... 6. (3).... (4).... (5).... (6).... 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the power under the said rules can be exercised only where the relevant authority is satisfied that such premises are in unauthorized occupation as defined in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and it further records the reasons for such satisfaction. He contended that in the instant case the order, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition does not contain any reason for the satisfaction of the concerned authority that the Petitioner was an unauthorized occupant of the plot in dispute. According to him it merely states it as a fact that the Petitioner is an unauthorized occupant without disclosing any reason therefore. This according to him vitiated the entire notice. 7. We are unable to accept this submission. It is true that rule requires that the order for eviction of unauthorized occupant can be made only when the relevant authority has recorded its reasons for the satisfaction that the concerned person is in fact an unauthorized occupant. The rule does not require that such satisfaction should be recited in the order itself. There is no averment in the writ petition that the reasons for the satisfaction were in fact not recorded by the relevant authority in the file in which the Petitioner's case had been dealt with by them. In case such a satisfaction was recorded therein the requirements of Rule 155, would stand complied with. 8. Learned Counsel next contended that before an order of eviction of a person can be made under this rule it has to be shown that he is an unauthorized occupant as defined in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. In the instant case the proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner under the said Act and eventually the District Judge, dehradun had, vide his order dated 1st May, 1976 ruled that the Petitioner was not an unauthorized occupant and that no proceedings under the Act could be against her at that stage. The District Judge recorded a finding that Petitioner's position was that of a licensee and that she could not become an unauthorized occupant till steps were taken to revoke the license. The District Judge recorded a finding that Petitioner's position was that of a licensee and that she could not become an unauthorized occupant till steps were taken to revoke the license. On behalf of Respondents an attempt was made to show that the said finding by the District Judge way erroneous and that in fact the license of the Petitioner had been revoked prior to the order dated 1st of May, 1976. According to the Act the order passed by the District Judge in appeal is to be treated as final. The Respondents did not take any steps to question the correctness of the appellate order of the District Judge dated 1st May, 1976. In the circumstances it cannot be permitted to urge that the Petitioner's license stood revoked by anything done by them prior to 1st of May, 1976. In the circumstances the Petitioner, cannot be considered as an unauthorized occupant of the accommodation in dispute on 1st of May, 1976. Her occupation of the premises on that date is to be treated as being in the capacity of a licensee. Admittedly the Respondents have not taken any steps to revoke the said license after 1st of May, 1976. It is therefore, apparent that on the date on which the impugned proceedings were initiated the Petitioner was not an unauthorized occupant as defined in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act. The proceedings initiated by the notice dated 01-11-1976 are, therefore, invalid and illegal. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The proceedings initiated on the basis of the notice dated 08-11-1976 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) are quashed. It is, however, made clear that the order passed by us shall not stand in the way of the Respondents, if they are so advised, in initiating fresh proceedings for the eviction of the Petitioner in accordance with law.