A. N. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition was originally filed by ex-Naik Ratan Bahadur Rai. He died during the pendency of the petition whereupon an application for substitution was filed by the heirs, namely, Smt. Tulsa Devi, his widow and Km. Laxmi, the daughter of the original petitioner. Notices were directed to be issued to the respondent. No counter-affidavit has, however, been filed. Substitution is accordingly allowed. ( 2 ) THE petition is directed against an order dt. 25-11-76 purporting to have been passed under R. 155 (2) of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules 1971. By this order, the petitioner was asked to voluntarily remove his alleged unauthorised occupation immediately from the premises covered by survey No. 243 and 243/8, 2 G. R. C. Bazar, Dehradun. This order was preceded by a notice issued under R. 155 (1) whereby the petitioner was asked to remove his occupation from the aforesaid premise within 14 days failing which he would be evicted by force. In this notice, it was stated that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the premises covered by survey No. 243 and 243/8, 2 G. R. C. Bazar, Dehradun. The petitioner filed a representation against the notice issued under R. 155 (1), a true copy whereof is Annex.-2 to the petition. Thereafter, the Station Commander, Station Head Quarters, Dehradun passed the impugned order dt. 25-11-1976 directing the petitioner to remove his unauthorised occupation from the aforesaid premises immediately failing which he would be evicted by force with the help of civil police on or before 22-12-76. ( 3 ) THE original petitioner, Ratan Bahadur Rai, was in the Indian Army and he served in the Second World War. During action in Italy, he was severely wounded as a result of which both his feet were amputated from the knees. He also lost one finger of his right hand and received permanent injury in his left elbow. As a consequence he became disabled. It appears that on account of these facts the Commandant of the Regiment allowed the petitioner and one other, who was also a disabled soldier, to occupy quarters nos. 20, 15 and 16 standing over the aforesaid survey numbers. Quarter No. 20 was in occupation of petitioner since June, 1946 whereas quarter No. 15 was occupied by Sete Gurung, and, on his death in 1954, by another soldier, namely, Kulbir Gurung. 20, 15 and 16 standing over the aforesaid survey numbers. Quarter No. 20 was in occupation of petitioner since June, 1946 whereas quarter No. 15 was occupied by Sete Gurung, and, on his death in 1954, by another soldier, namely, Kulbir Gurung. In March, 1948, ownership rights over all the three quarters were conferred on the petitioner and Sete Gurung by the Commandant of his regiment, viz. , 1/2 Gorkha Rifles. This was reiterated in a letter issued by the Commandant on 14-8-59, a true copy whereof is Annex.-1 to the petition which states that the quarters mentioned above were handed over to the petitioner in March, 1948 with full approval of the competent military and civil authorities and that a fresh order renewing the ownership of the said building was being issued to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, some proceedings were drawn up against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 by the respondent in regard to the quarters handed over to the petitioner which are admittedly standing over the plots covered by survey No. 243 and 243/8. Against the notice issued to the petitioner under the said Act, he filed an appeal which was dismissed insofar as Survey No. 243 is concerned, but in regard to survey No. 243/8, it was observed that there was nothing to indicate that any action had been initiated against the petitioner under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. ( 5 ) AFTER the conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings, the Station Commander issued the aforesaid notice to the petitioner in the purported exercise of powers under R. 155 (1) of the Defence and Internal Security Rules, 1971. This was followed up by a final order which was issued on 25-11-76 against which this petition is directed. ( 6 ) FOR the petitioner, it is urged that the impugned orders are ex facie unsustainable in law inasmuch as on the facts which are not disputed, it is apparent that the petitioner was not in unauthorised occupation of the premises in question. It is contended that under the Defence and Internal Security Rules the term "unauthorised occupation" has to be assigned the same meaning as that given to it under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. It is contended that under the Defence and Internal Security Rules the term "unauthorised occupation" has to be assigned the same meaning as that given to it under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. According to the definition of the term "unauthorised occupation" as given in the aforesaid Act unauthorised occupation means occupation by any person over public premises without any authority for such occupation. It is argued that in view of the orders (referred to above) issued by the Commandant of the petitioners regiment expressly permitting him to occupy the premises and recognizing, him as the owner thereof, the occupation of the petitioner could not be characterised as unauthorised within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and Rules. ( 7 ) BY way of a submission in the alternative, a feeble attempt was also made by the learned counsel to contend that the disputed premises were not "public premises" within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and consequently the entire proceedings must be held to be void ab initio. ( 8 ) INSOFAR as the latter of the above submissions is concerned, it does not seem necessary to express any final opinion thereon as, in our opinion, the petition is entitled to succeed on the first submission. ( 9 ) IN the counter-affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondent, the fact that the order dt. 14-8-59, the contents of which have been set out hereinabove was passed by the Commandant of the petitioners Battalion recognizing the rights of the petitioner over the premises in question has not been disputed. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit, however, is that the Officer who had issued the orders in favour of the petitioner permitting him to occupy and use the premises in question was not competent under the Cantonment Land and Administration Rules 1937 to pass such orders. Various Rules have been quoted in support of this legal submission. ( 10 ) WE are, however, unable to agree that the stand taken in the counter affidavit is tenable or affords a valid justification for treating the occupation of the petitioner as unauthorised. Various Rules have been quoted in support of this legal submission. ( 10 ) WE are, however, unable to agree that the stand taken in the counter affidavit is tenable or affords a valid justification for treating the occupation of the petitioner as unauthorised. Even if it be assumed that the officer who had purported to transfer or confer ownership rights on the petitioner was under the relevant rules legally not authorised to permit the petitioner to occupy the land in question, we think that in view of the width of amplitude of the definition of "unauthorised occupation" the petitioners possession cannot be validly characterised as unauthorised. ( 11 ) SECTION 2 (g) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 defines unauthorised occupation as under :-" (G ). "unauthorised occupation" in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without 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 transfer) under which or the capacity in which he was allowed to hold or occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever, and also includes continuance in occupation in the circumstances specified in Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 7, and person shall not merely by reason of the fact that he had paid any amount as rent, be deemed to be in authorised occupation. " ( 12 ) THE occupation of a person, on the plain language of the definition would become unauthorised only if the public premises are occupied by a person without any authority whatsoever. ( 13 ) IT must be borne in mind that the procedure prescribed for eviction of the so called unauthorised occupants under the Rules is extremely drastic. It does not provide for any show cause notice, prior or post decisional, or even an appeal. It must hence be construed strictly. The Rules would be attracted if the occupation is totally unauthorised, that is, only to rank trespassers and not where a person is permitted to occupy public premises under a license or a permit or tease granted by Central Government officers holding responsible posts and having some authority or semblance of authority to make such grants. The Rules would be attracted if the occupation is totally unauthorised, that is, only to rank trespassers and not where a person is permitted to occupy public premises under a license or a permit or tease granted by Central Government officers holding responsible posts and having some authority or semblance of authority to make such grants. ( 14 ) APPLYING this dictum we find that the order issued by the Commandant transferring or purporting to transfer ownership rights on he petitioner was sufficient to constitute the element of authority which is contemplated under S. 2 (g) of the Act. The order dated 14-8-59 states that the buildings were handed over to the petitioner in 1948 with the approval of competent military and civil authorities. So long as, therefore, this order stands and the same is not revoked or set aside by a Competent Authority, the occupation of the petitioner cannot be treated as unauthorised or being without any authority so as to attract R. 155. The petitioner was in occupation of the premises right from 1946 under express orders issued by the various military authorities which clearly stated that the petitioner was being put in possession with the approval of the competent military and civil authorities. ( 15 ) THE upshot of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that the impugned orders which proceed on the assumption that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation are liable to be quashed. ( 16 ) THERE is another tine of reasoning which leads to the same conclusion. Rule 155 of the Defence and Internal Security Rules 1971 can be invoked only on the fulfilment of three conditions. First, the premises in question must be "public premises" as defined in the Public Premises (Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Second, the Central Government must be of the opinion that the premises are required for any purposes connected with the defence of India and Civil Defence or Public Safety and interest or for effort of military operations and maintenance of supply of services essential to the life or community. The third and last requirement is that the Central Government must be satisfied that such premises are in unauthorised occupation as defined in the Act, and the Central Government has recorded the reasons for such satisfaction. The third and last requirement is that the Central Government must be satisfied that such premises are in unauthorised occupation as defined in the Act, and the Central Government has recorded the reasons for such satisfaction. ( 17 ) WE have already found that the third requirement is clearly absent in the present case, namely, that at present the petitioners occupation cannot be characterised as unauthorised within the meaning of that Act and Rules mentioned above. As regards the second requirement, even if it be assumed that the orders passed under R. 155 (1) need not itself recite that the Central Government is satisfied that such premises are in unauthorised occupation of a person, the satisfaction has nevertheless to be recorded by the Central Government somewhere before action is initiated under R. 155 (1 ). In the counter-affidavit, it is not stated that the Competent Authority had passed the impugned notice or order after the reasons for such satisfaction had been recorded. This omission also renders the impugned action illegal and unauthorised. ( 18 ) THUS in either view of the matter, the impugned notice and order are liable to be quashed. ( 19 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice dt. 8-11-76 and the order dt. 25-11-76 (respectively Annexures-2 and 4 to the petition) are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to their costs from the respondents. Petition allowed. .