Judgment 1. The petitioner was a lessee with respect to the premises in question. As per the notice dated 26.8.1983 the tenancy was terminated by the Bank and the occupant was called upon to quit and surrender vacant possession of the said premises on or before the date mentioned therein. Show cause notices dated 4.10.1983, 21.10.1983 and 11.11.1983 under Sec.4(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 were issued by the Estate Officer. The said notices were challenged in W.P.No.12339 of 1983 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 20.11.1991. Thereafter also notices were issued to the petitioner fixing the date for the hearing of the proceedings. The petitioner appeared and raised an objection saying that a fresh notice should be issued and the Estate Officer issued a fresh notice under Sec.4(2) of the said Act calling upon the petitioner to appear in person or by duly authorised representative, on 29.1.1992 at the Head Office of the Corporation Bank, situated at Mangaladevi Temple Road, Bangalore for personal hearing. The same was served on the petitioner on 10.1.1992 by affixture. The petitioner did not appear in person or through the Advocate, but forwarded a letter dated 22.1.1992 requesting to grant eight weeks time in order to give an opportunity to collect particulars to satisfy the Estate Officer that the occupant is not an unauthorised one. So, the proceedings were adjourned to 14.2.1992. Even on 14.2.1992 nobody appeared before the Estate Officer but an application dated 10.2.1992 seeking adjournment for a period of eight weeks, along with counter objection, was filed on 13.2.1992. So, enquiry was adjourned to 13.3.1992. Again on 13.3.1992, the petitioner did not appear but requested adjournment. So, again it was adjourned to 2.4.1992. Even on 2.4.1992 nobody appeared. Again at the request of the petitioner enquiry was adjourned to 4.5.1992. On 4.5.1992 one Natarajan, proprietor of the petitioner textiles appeared in person and requested for adjournment on health ground and so enquiry was again adjourned to 15.6.1992. On 15.6.1992 enquiry was held in part. Thereafter, enquiry was adjourned to 7.8.1992. On 7.8.1992 again it was adjourned to 21.8.1992 with due notice. On 4.5.1992 one Natarajan, proprietor of the petitioner textiles appeared in person and requested for adjournment on health ground and so enquiry was again adjourned to 15.6.1992. On 15.6.1992 enquiry was held in part. Thereafter, enquiry was adjourned to 7.8.1992. On 7.8.1992 again it was adjourned to 21.8.1992 with due notice. Meanwhile, the Estate Officer received a notice in a Miscellaneous Petition filed in writ appeal against the order in W.P.No.12339 of 1983 to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the writ appeal was received and a telegram also was received from the petitioner informing the death of his mother and so enquiry was adjourned to 4.9.1992. Even on 4.9.1992 nobody appeared. Again it was adjourned to 30.9.1992. Again on 30.9.1992 none appeared. Then enquiry was adjourned to 30.10.1992 as requested in the application dated 26.9.1992. But unfortunately on 30.10.1992 neither the petitioner nor his advocate was present. But he sent an application dated 26.10.1992 seeking adjournment. So, enquiry was finally adjourned to 30.11.1992. On 30.11.1992 also, petitioner did not appear. The request for adjournment was also rejected and the enquiry was closed. and orders were reserved. Meanwhile, on 3.2.1993 the writ appeal also was dismissed. On the basis of the objection filed by the petitioner the Estate Officer passed the order on 28.10.1993 holding that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and so in exercise of powers conferred on the Estate Officer under Sec.5 (1) of the said Act, the petitioner was directed to vacate the said public premises within 15 days from the date of service of the publication of the order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal in C.M.A.No.210 of 1993 on the file of the District Court, Salem and the learned District Judge also confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, as the lease was granted only in 1977, and the said Act came into force in 1971 itself. I am not able to accept the said submission. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, as the lease was granted only in 1977, and the said Act came into force in 1971 itself. I am not able to accept the said submission. After the coming into force of the said Act the lease deed has been executed and so the provisions of the said Act will squarely apply to the facts of the present case, and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 3. Under Sec.5 of the said Act, the reasons for eviction will have to be stated. In the present case, according to the counsel for the petitioner, no such reasons has been stated and so the entire proceedings are vitiated. To appreciate the said submission, it will be beneficial to extract the relevant provision, namely, Sec.4 of the said Act, which reads as follows: “4. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction:If the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue, in the manner hereafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) Thenotice shall: (a) Specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises, to show cause, if any against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (4) Where the estate officer knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-sec. (4) Where the estate officer knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-sec. (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed.” Under the abovesaid provision, the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made, should be specified in the notice. 4. While passing the order of eviction of unauthorised occupants, the estate officer should record the reasons as per Sec.5 of the said Act. Which reads as follows: “Eviction of unauthorised occupants:(1) If, after considering the cause, if any shown by any person is pursuance of a notice under Sec.4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction under Sub-sec.(1), the estate officer or any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.” 5. On the basis of the said provisions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the estate officer is only on the basis that the occupation of the petitioner is unauthorised, and so eviction order is passed. But, the appellate authority/learned III Additional District Judge, Salem has also confirmed the same, having found that the said reasons are informed to the petitioner for ordering eviction, and so no separate reasons need be given. 6. But, the appellate authority/learned III Additional District Judge, Salem has also confirmed the same, having found that the said reasons are informed to the petitioner for ordering eviction, and so no separate reasons need be given. 6. The definition of unauthorised occupation order Sec.2(e) of the said Act is occupation by any person of the Public premises after the authority under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. When the lease in favour of person was terminated, that authority to have possession on the basis of the lease disappears and he becomes a person in unauthorised occupation of the premises. On the plain terms, the said Sec.4 (3) of the Act enjoins upon the estate officer to serve a notice in writing upon the person, who in his opinion is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, to show cause as to why an order if eviction should not be passed against him. There cannot be any dispute, according to the provisions of the said Act, such a notice has to be served on the said person as prescribed. Sec.4(2) of the said Act contains a mandate to the estate officer that he should satisfy with the grounds on which the order of eviction proposed to be made. The same mandate is contemplated, as the petitioner had every right to know about the circumstances on which he is sought to be evicted. On the other hand, the said notice for eviction cannot be vague, and, if it is so, the person sought to be evicted cannot give effective reply to the said notice. In the present case, the notice was issued and orders were passed on the ground that the petitioners occupation is unauthorised. To come to such conclusion, valid grounds have been given by the authorities. 7. The only question as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, whether such a ground that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation alone gives jurisdiction to the estate officer to pass the order of eviction, without giving any other reasons, than the said reason. In my opinion the conclusion of the estate officer that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation is also a ground for eviction. So it cannot be challenged as no ground is mentioned. In my opinion the conclusion of the estate officer that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation is also a ground for eviction. So it cannot be challenged as no ground is mentioned. I seek support from the decision of the Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Standard Literature Co. v. Union of India Standard Literature Co. v. Union of India Standard Literature Co. v. Union of India , A.I.R. 1968 Cal. 1 which reads as follows: “I shall first of all deal with the point which does not relate to the constitutionality of the said Act, namely the challenge to the notice under Sec.4. The wording of the relevant notice under Sec.4 dated 8th August, 1964 has been set out above. In the notice to quit, given on the 22nd April, 1954 (Annexure C to the petition) the reason for eviction of the company has been expressly mentioned, namely that the portion of the premises held by the company was urgently required by the Government of India for it own use, for allotment to the Central Government Offices as after remodeling the building. In the notice under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.4, however, the only ground that has been mentioned was that a notice to quit had been given and the tenancy had been terminated If the Division Bench Judgment (1965)69 C.W.N. 1035, is correct, then this notice is invalid. In our opinion, that decision is not correct and should be overruled upon this point. In so far as S.K.Dutta, J., held that a person cannot be in unauthorised occupation by virtue, of the said Act, but because of the existence of the factors mentioned in clause (e) of Sec.2, no exception can be taken. But in so far as the learned Judges have held that in a notice under Sec.4(1), the grounds specified must be something other than the service of a notice to quit and the expiry of its term, it has been wrongly decided. A tenant of property belonging to Government is in a somewhat worst position than a person holding private land. The proviso to Sec.1 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 states that the 1956 Act does not apply to any premises belonging to Government. A tenant of property belonging to Government is in a somewhat worst position than a person holding private land. The proviso to Sec.1 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 states that the 1956 Act does not apply to any premises belonging to Government. Therefore, where the tenancy of a person has been properly determined under the Transfer of Property Act, then in the case of lands belonging to Government, there is no difference to eviction. All that Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.4 requires is that the notice under Sub-sec.(1) should specify the grounds on which the order of eviction was proposed to be made. If a notice to quit has been validly served, and the period specified therein has expired, then the person served is in ‘unauthorised occupation’ as defined under clause (e) of Sec.2(1) of the said Act. I do not see why this should not be sufficient ground for an order of eviction under the said Act. In such a case, the person concerned has no defence, and all that was happening is that the machinery of eviction was being expedited. This ground therefore, is not of substance.” Admittedly, in this case, the estate officer and the appellate authority have given sufficient grounds to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupation. But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the estate officer, first must satisfy himself that the public premises in question is in unauthorised occupation, and that he has to make an order of eviction for reasons to be recorded therein. According to him, the reasons which are to be recorded should be other than the reason that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant. I am not able to accept such submission. To proceed with the eviction proceedings, first, the estate officer must come to the conclusion that the person concerned is an unauthorised occupant; otherwise, he cannot have jurisdiction to proceed further. He must give reasons for eviction as contemplated under Secs.4 and 5 of the said Act. The occupant is in unauthorised occupation itself is a ground to pass order of eviction. It is not in dispute, in the present case, that the estate officer and the appellate authority have given sufficient reasons so as to conclude that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation. So, as stated above, no further reasons need be given case. 8. The occupant is in unauthorised occupation itself is a ground to pass order of eviction. It is not in dispute, in the present case, that the estate officer and the appellate authority have given sufficient reasons so as to conclude that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation. So, as stated above, no further reasons need be given case. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not raised any other arguments. 9. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.9294 and 5823 of 1999 are closed.