JUDGMENT Arun Misra, J. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the vires of section 2(g) of the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedhakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam). Section 2(g) of the Adhiniyam runs as under:- Section 2(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 he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. Petitioner has been transferred from Bhopal to Gwalior as member of Board of Revenue, and is supposed to stay in his head-quarters at Gwalior. After the transfer of the petitioner the government passed an order on 17-6-1999 declaring the petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant of House No. X-D-1, Char Imli, Bhopal. Even thereafter petitioner did not vacate the premises so allotted to him. Hence the government had to start charging the penal rent amounting to Rs. 3,370/- per month as per the order dated 28-10-1999. Petitioner's appeal is pending before the duly constituted Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Bhopal division. It is further mentioned in the writ that petitioner was transferred to Gwalior prior to 3 and 1/2 years and has not vacated the accommodation at Bhopal, so far. In the writ petition vires of section 9(1) of the Adhiniyam and the notification dated 5-5-1989 published in M.P. (extraordinary) Gazette, appointing Commissioner, Bhopal as the Appellate Authority within the meaning of section 9 of the Adhiniyam, has also been assailed. At the out-set it is clear that the order of eviction against the petitioner was passed on 28-6-1999. Appeal was preferred way back on 3-7-1999 which is still pending for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that section 2(g) of the Adhiniyam is ultra vires for the reason that it gives an arbitrary power, inasmuch as section declares a person to be in unauthorised occupation whose authority for occupation has expired or has been determined For any reason whatsoever. The vires of section 4 of the Adhiniyam as substituted by amendment that 18/81 was considered by this Court. The vires of section 4 of the Adhiniyam as substituted by amendment that 18/81 was considered by this Court. These sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Adhiniyam were substituted by amendment Act 18/81 pursuant to striking down of sections 4, 5 and 9 introduced by the amending Act 19/78 by this Court. In the case of Munnawar Ahmad and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, , vires of the amended provisions of sections 4, 5 and 9 were introduced it was again challenged in the case of Ataullah Khan vs. State of M.P. reported in 1988 MPLJ 99 : AIR 1988 MP 77 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- Sections 4, 5 and 9 as substituted by the Amendment Act No. 18 of 1981, in our opinion do not suffer from any of the vices pointed out in the case of Munnawar Ahmad and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, . A perusal of section 4 would indicate that sub-section (1) of section 4 contemplates issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction. Sub-section (2) provides for the contents of notice to be issued under sub-section (1). Sub-section (3) on the other hand contemplates that the Competent Authority shall cause notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and that it shall also be published in such other manner as may be published. Sub-section (4) provides that where the competent authority knows or has reason to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (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 the persons or in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub-section (1) of section 6 on the other hand makes it obligatory on the competent authority to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the cause to be shown by the person against whom a notice under sub-section (1) of section 4 has been issued, and it is only if after considering the cause shown and giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person concerned that an order for eviction of the said person is to be passed. Sub-section (2) of section 3 provides that the competent authority may, on an application by the person against whom an order is passed under sub-section (1), grant such time for vacating the premises as it deems fit subject to such conditions as may be imposed. In those cases where the person concerned fails to comply with the order of eviction before the date specified in sub-section (1) or where time is granted, such a person has to be actually evicted. Sections 4 and 5 as substituted by M. P. Amendment Act No. 18 of the 1981 therefore, contain complete safeguard against an arbitrary eviction. The defects which were pointed out in the case of Munnawar Ahmad and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, with regard to the right of appeal conferred by section 9 of the Act as amended by M. P. Amendment Act No. 9 of 1978 are not to be found in section 9 of the Act as substituted by M.P. Amendment Act No. 18/1981 sub-section (1) of section 9 contemplates that the State Government may, by notification, appoint such person being an officer not below the rank of Collector as Appellate Authority for the purpose of this Act in respect of such areas as may be specified in the notification. Sub-section (2) provides that an appeal shall lie against every order of the competent authority made in respect of any public premises under sub-section (1). Sub-section (3) of section 9 provides for the limitation within which the appeal has to be preferred. This sub-section contains a proviso which confers power on the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal even after the expiry of limitation prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 9, if such authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Sub-section (4) also entitles the Appellate Authority to stay the enforcement of the order appealed against for a total period not exceeding sixty days and on such conditions as it may deem fit. The appeal preferred u/s 9 of the Adhiniyam as it stood after its amendment by Amendment Act No. 9 of the 1978 was challenged in the case of Munnawar Ahmad and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, . The appeal preferred u/s 9 of the Adhiniyam as it stood after its amendment by Amendment Act No. 9 of the 1978 was challenged in the case of Munnawar Ahmad and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, . It was pointed-out in that case that section 9 makes the appeal a useless formality because it provides that no appeal shall lie challenging the legality of the order of correctness of the information on which the order was passed. It was further pointed out that it is difficult to comprehend that if an appeal filed u/s 9(1-A) the appellant cannot challenge the legality of the order or correctness of the information on which eviction was ordered, what else can be usefully urge in the appeal. According to the learned judges the changes introduced in section 9 made the appeal an exercise in futility. It is open to a person to show cause against the proposed order of eviction u/s 4 and that order is further subject to appeal u/s 9 of the Adhiniyam. Section 2(g) which defines the unauthorised occupation cannot be said to be ultra vires as it declares a person in unauthorised occupation in relation to the public premises without authority and includes the continuance in occupation by any person or 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. Authority to occupy may expire for variety of reasons. Authority to occupy may be determined for several reasons such as i.e. death of the allottee, transfer, retirement etc. can be the causes for determining the authority to occupy. All these reasons are not required to be mentioned u/s 2(g) obviously it is not possible to mention the various reasons for which authority to occupy may be determined. Since the event of determine the authority to occupy has to be in the context of Act interpreted as sound exercise of the prudence based on reason. Mention of the word "reason" in section 2(g) makes the provision valid and same cannot be said to be ultra vires. Use of the word "reason" is antithesis to arbitrariness in action. The submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of merit. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed