JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Saxena for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 25th July, 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing the Misc. Appeal No. 65 of 2002 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11th March, 2002 passed by the Estate Officer, Meerut. Cantonment under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 directing eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. 3. Facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly noted are; Bungalow Nos.56 and 57 Royal Hotel, Mall Road, Meerut Cantonment was held by one Mr. J.A.W. Price and Lt. Colonel A.M.L Price as old grant under general order No. 179 dated 12.9.1836 of the Governor General in Council bearing G.L.R. No.221 having an area of 2.479 acres under the management of Defence Estate Officer, Meerut Cantonment. A notice dated 17th April, 1980 was issued by the Government of India Ministry of Defence to Mr. J.A.M. Price and Major A.M.L. Price stating that Bungalow No. 56 and 57 bearing G.L.R. Survey No.221 belong to the President of India and held by them under the Governor General Order No. 179 dated 12th September, 1836 and the Government has decided to resume the said land and building standing thereon. The notice directed them to quit and deliver possession on the expiry of one month from the date of service. The notice also offered an amount of Rs. 86,100/- as a value of the authorised erections standing thereon. A writ petition being Writ Petition No. 4599 of 1985 (Retd. Col. A.M.L. Price and another v. Union of India and others) was filed challenging the notice of resumption. Another writ petition being Writ Petition No.9364 of 1965 was filed by Lt. Col. A.M.L. Price challenging the communication of the District Magistrate, Meerut dated 21st July, 1985 intimating that property in question has been vested in the State and a receiver has been appointed. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25th September, 1996. Col. A.M.L. Price challenging the communication of the District Magistrate, Meerut dated 21st July, 1985 intimating that property in question has been vested in the State and a receiver has been appointed. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25th September, 1996. A notice dated 5th April, 2000 was issued to the petitioner by the Estate Officer, Meerut Cantonment under Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to show cause on or before 29th May, 2000. The petitioner filed his objection and affidavit claiming that the premises in question was never old grant and the petitioner is a legal tenant. The Estate Officer after considering the objection of the petitioner passed an order directing eviction of the petitioner from Suit No. 23 in Bungalow No. 56 and 57, Royal Hotel, Mall Road, Meerut Cantonment. An appeal being Misc. Appeal No.65 of 2000 has been filed by the petitioner, which has been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 25th July, 2007. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid two orders. 4. Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition, raised following submissions : (i) The property in question is not an old grant and the Union of India has no jurisdiction to resume the property. Neither the Governor General nor the respondents at any point of time held any right of any kind in the premises in question. The provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are not applicable and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is void ab initio. (ii) No notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act having been given to the petitioner, the eviction of the petitioner under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is vitiated due to non service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. (iii)The petitioner was tenant of the premises and Union of India ought to have filed suit for possession based on title and summary proceedings for eviction of the petitioner are not maintainable. 5. (iii)The petitioner was tenant of the premises and Union of India ought to have filed suit for possession based on title and summary proceedings for eviction of the petitioner are not maintainable. 5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India refuting the submissions of counsel for the petitioner, contended that the premises in question is entered in the General Land Registrar and is an old grant, which having been resumed by the Union Government the rights of the petitioner, if any, had automatically extinguished. The writ petition filed by the grantee, i.e., Lt. Colonel A.M.L. Price challenging the resumption notice having been dismissed, the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and has rightly been evicted from the premises in question. The petitioner has never been accepted as tenant by the Union of India nor has any right to continue in the premises. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The first submission of the petitioner is that premises in question is not an “old grant” and the respondents have no proprietary right over the land, hence neither the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has any application nor the petitioner could be evicted. 8. The earlier writ petition was filed by Col. J.M.L. Price and another challenging the notice issued by the Union of India resuming the premises in question. The Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition made following observations : “.....In short the court may place on record what the issues in the two writ petitions are. The writ petition which was filed in 1980, it was brought to the High Court when Lt. Col. A.M.L. Price was alive. The Union of India in reference to grants made of cantonment lands, has resumed the grant so made to the predecessor-in-interest of Lt. Col. A.M.L. Price. The grant had lapsed by efflux of time. These are grants of Military land managed by the Cantonment Board under the Cantonment Act, 1925. While resuming the grant it was indicated to the holders of the grant that the Government of India was prepared to offer them a sum of Rs.86,100/- as the value of the authorised structures standing on the Site B No.57 corresponding to GLR (Government land register) Survey No. 221, Meerut Cantonment, measuring 2.479 acres. This has otherwise been described as the Royal Hotel, Meerut...” 9. This has otherwise been described as the Royal Hotel, Meerut...” 9. The Division Bench clearly stated in the judgment dated 25th September, 1996 that the land in question was grant of military land managed by the Cantonment Board under the Cantonment Act, 1925. The nature of holders’ right in the General Land Register is mentioned as “old grant” under the management of Military Estate Officer, Meerut Circle. In the writ petition Lt. Col. A.M.L. Price, who according to the petitioner was the grantee, the Division Bench of this Court having accepted the nature of premises as “old grant”, it is not open for the petitioner to allege himself tenant and to challenge the nature and character of the premises in question. The land belonging to Union of India under the management and control of Military Estate Officer, is a public premises within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are fully applicable. There is no substance in the submission, of the petitioner that the land in question is a private land in which the respondents have no proprietary right. 10. It is further to be noted that Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 25th September, 1996 had dismissed the writ petition by making following observations : “.....What the beneficiaries cannot hold the executors cannot hold. If the grant has been assumed by the federal government as it saw the end of it by efflux of time there is no actionable claim left on this immoveable asset in favour of someone living out side India. Of moveables the assets is available to a rightful claimant though domiciled outside India. This is the law....” 11. Ultimately the Division Bench in the judgment dated 25th September, 1996 held following while dismissing the writ petitions : “The reliefs sought by the two writ petitions cannot be granted, regard being had to the circumstances that the person who could held the grant is dead and the grant has been resumed. The consequential effects of the resumed grant, such as compensation for the valid structures on the land, if available may permit an action before the appropriate division of the High Court. These writ petitions No. 4599 of 1980 and No. 9354 of 1985, are consigned to the record as dismissed....” 12. The consequential effects of the resumed grant, such as compensation for the valid structures on the land, if available may permit an action before the appropriate division of the High Court. These writ petitions No. 4599 of 1980 and No. 9354 of 1985, are consigned to the record as dismissed....” 12. The writ petition filed by Lt. Col. A.M.L. Price and by executor of the registered will dated 12th April, 1979 executed by J.A.N. Price challenging the resumption of grant having been dismissed, the rights of the grantees in the immoveable property have been extinguished. The petitioner has no right to continue in the premises and he has rightly been held to be an unauthorised occupant. Both the Estate Officer and the appellate authority have considered all objections raised by the petitioner has have recorded categorical finding that petitioner is an unauthorised occupant liable to be evicted. 13. The second submission of the petitioner is based on Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provide giving notice for termination of lease of immoveable property. The question to be considered is as to what will be the consequence of not giving a notice under Sections 106 of Transfer of Property Act for termination of tenancy of the petitioner as alleged by him. At the outset, it is to be noted that the Estate Officer has categorically held that there is no basis to say that petitioner is a legal tenant. It is necessary to look the pleadings in this writ petition regarding his claim of tenancy. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it has been stated that petitioner and other persons were allowed in the life time of Sri J.A.W. Price and Lt. Col. A.M.L. Price, the original owners who had permitted the petitioner and other persons to occupy different parts as tenant. The petitioner also claimed that they continued to treat themselves tenant of Price brothers and continued to pay rent to Mr. J.A.W. Price 21.6.1985. The petitioner claims that he offered the rent to the State exchequer, which was not accepted. 14. According to the petitioner himself he has not paid rent to anyone after 21st June, 1985. Neither there is any material on record to come to conclusion that petitioner was treated as tenant by original grantee nor there is any reason to not accept the finding recorded by the Estate Officer. 14. According to the petitioner himself he has not paid rent to anyone after 21st June, 1985. Neither there is any material on record to come to conclusion that petitioner was treated as tenant by original grantee nor there is any reason to not accept the finding recorded by the Estate Officer. The petitioner has not brought anything on record to accept him as legal tenant. The submission of the petitioner is that due to non giving of notice under Sections 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the entire proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are vitiated. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is a provision for termination of month to month tenancy by giving fifteen days notice. The Transfer of Property Act is a general law governing transfer of property. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has been enacted to provide for a speedy machinery for eviction of unauthorised occupant from public premises as defined in Section 2(e). The object and purpose of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is entirely different. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 also provide for issue of notice. Section 4 provides that 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 a notice calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. Unauthorised occupation has been defined in Section 2(g), which is to the following effect : “(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.” 15. The old grant and the rights of grantee having been determined by resumption of the land by Union of India as per terms of the general order of the Governor General in Council No. 179, dated 12th September, 1836, the entitlement of the petitioner, if any, to occupy the premises came to an end “and he having become unauthorised occupant, no error was committed by issuing notice under Section 4 giving opportunity to the petitioner to show cause that he’ is not an unauthorised occupant. The petitioner filed his reply, which was duly considered and he having been found to be unauthorised occupant, order for eviction has been passed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the submission of the petitioner that due to non giving of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act entire proceedings were vitiated and provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were not applicable, have no substance and cannot be accepted. In this context, it is relevant to refer the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in 1990(4) S.C.C. 406 ; Ashoka Marketing Limited and another v. Punjab National Bank and others. The Apex Court in the said case examined the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in context of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Apex Court while considering the definition of unauthorised occupant under Section 2(g), laid down following in paragraph 30 : “30. The definition of the expression ‘unauthorised occupation’ contained in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act is in two parts. In the first part the said expression has been defined to mean the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation. It implies occupation by a person who has entered into occupation of any public premises without lawful authority as well as occupation which was permissive at the inception but has ceased to be so. The second part of the definition is inclusive in nature and it expressly covers 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. The second part of the definition is inclusive in nature and it expressly covers 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. This part covers a case where a person had entered into occupation legally under valid authority but who continues in occupation after the authority under which he was put in occupation has expired or has been determined. The words “whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer” in this part of the definition are wide in amplitude and would cover a lease because lease is a mode of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. The definition of unauthorised occupation contained in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act would, therefore, cover a case where a person has entered into occupation. of the public premises legally as a tenant under a lease but whose tenancy has expired or has been determined in accordance with law.” 16. The submission, which has been pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present case involved complicated question of title and the respondents could not have resorted to summary proceedings as provided under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the Union of India was to file a suit for possession based on title. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in A.I.R. 1997 Bom 57; Mrs. Komalam Vardarajan v. Union of India and another, the judgments of the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 872; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1081; Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and another, judgments of this Court in 1983(2) ALR 465; Purshottam Dass Tandon v. Union of India, 1983 ALR 793; Rajendra Kumar and others v. District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, 1983 ALR 792; Hari Shanker v. Prescribed Authority, Kanpur and others, judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1365; Mohar Singh v. Devi Charan and others and judgment of this Court reported in 2002(2) ARC 422; Rajpal Singh v. Devendra Kumar. 17. In Mrs. 17. In Mrs. Komalam Vardarajan’s case (supra), the writ petition was filed by widow of a deceased employee, who was allotted the public premises by virtue of her husband being employee1 of first respondent. The premises was taken on hire by Union of India. The deceased retired on 31st December, 1978. After the said date he purchased the said flat from the original owner on 19th January, 1979. The proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated and after a series of litigation ultimately order for eviction was passed. The Bombay High Court upheld the eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and laid down following in paragraph 8 : “8. We do not find any substance in any of the submission made by Mrs. Purohit. In our view, the premises were allotted to the deceased and on retirement from service the allotment became unauthorised and thus the deceased and after his death his legal heirs became liable to be evicted under the said Eviction Act. After the death of the deceased, the petitioner has continued to. remain in possession. The monthly lease in favour of the Government is subsisting as the same is not terminated. On the original allottee (Petitioner’s landlord) becoming the owner of the premises, the monthly lease cannot automatically come to an end. The petitioner is found to be in an unauthorised occupation of the public premises viz., the said flat in Patankar Building. We do not find any infirmity in the Impugned Order. Therefore, the petition requires to be dismissed.” 18. The above judgment in no manner helps the petitioner. 19. The Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh’s case (supra) observed that power of Government to evict summarily cannot be resorted in cases where complicated questions of title, arise for consideration. The said judgment was on its own facts. The question in the said case was as to whether the plots in issue was included in the acquisition notified by the Government of Nizam. A Civil Suit No. 1 of 1956 was filed by Osmania University against Nawab Habibuddin claiming that three lands were acquired by the Government for its benefit. The suit was dismissed and the appeal to the High Court was also dismissed affirming the finding of the trial Court. A Civil Suit No. 1 of 1956 was filed by Osmania University against Nawab Habibuddin claiming that three lands were acquired by the Government for its benefit. The suit was dismissed and the appeal to the High Court was also dismissed affirming the finding of the trial Court. Osmania University wrote a letter to the Government of Andhra Pradesh requesting to take steps for the summary eviction of persons who were allegedly in unauthorised occupation. In the said background the Court laid down that question of title of three plots cannot properly be decided in summary proceeding under Sections 6 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 20. It is relevant to note the observation of the Constitution Bench in Ashoka Marketing’s case (supra) while considering the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Apex Court rejected the submission as to whether a lease has been determined or not involves complicated questions of law and the Estate Officer cannot be expected to decide such questions. Following was laid down in paragraph 33 : “33. Another submission that has been urged by Shri Ganguli is that the question whether a lease has been determined or not involves complicated questions of law and the Estate Officer, who is not required to be an officer well versed in law, cannot be expected to decide such question and, therefore, it must be held that the provisions of the Public Premises Act have no application to a case when the person sought to be evicted had obtained possession of the premises as a lessee. It is true that there is no requirement in the Public Premises Act that the Estate Officer must be a person well versed in law. But, that, by itself, cannot be a ground for excluding from the ambit of the said Act premises in unauthorised occupation of persons who obtained possession of the said premises under a lease. Section 4 of the Public Premises Act requires issuing of a notice to the person in unauthorised occupation of any Public Premises requiring him to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. Section 5 makes provisions for production of evidence in support of the cause shown by the person who has been served with a notice under Section 4 and giving of a personal hearing by the Estate Officer. Section 5 makes provisions for production of evidence in support of the cause shown by the person who has been served with a notice under Section 4 and giving of a personal hearing by the Estate Officer. Section 8 provides that an Estate Officer, shall, for the purpose of holding any enquiry under the said Act have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the matters specified therein namely: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring discovery and production of documents; and (c) any other matters which may be prescribed.” 21. The case of Purshottam Dass Tandon (supra) was a case where this Court held that after considering the evidence on record the Union of India, which was claiming ownership, could not establish its ownership. That was a case with regard to a dispute of particular piece of land and was decided on its own facts, which does not help the petitioner in any manner. 22. The judgment in Hari Shanker’s case (supra) was a case where it was observed that State Government has to lead evidence first in support of its case and thereafter unauthorised occupier can be asked to lead evidence. No such controversy is involved in the present case. 23. The judgment in Rajendra Kumar’s case (supra) was a case where the applicability of principle of estoppel was considered while considering the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The said case has no applicability in facts of the present case. 24. The judgment in Rajpal Singh’s case (supra) was a case in which none of the issues of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was involved nor the said case renders any help to the petitioner in facts of the present case. 25. The judgment of the Apex Court in Express Newspapers’s case (supra) relied by counsel for the petitioner has also no application in the present case. In the said case the building was constructed with the sanction of lessor, Union of India. In facts of that case it was held that the said building was not a public premise within the meaning of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. In the said case the building was constructed with the sanction of lessor, Union of India. In facts of that case it was held that the said building was not a public premise within the meaning of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. It is relevant to note that Constitution Bench in Ashoka Marketing’s case (supra), distinguishing the said judgment observed following in paragraph 32 : “32. Shri Ganguli has placed reliance on the decision of A. P. Sen, J. in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and others, [1985] Suppl. 3 S.C.R. 382 and has submitted that in that case the learned Judge has held that cases involving relationship between the lessor and lessee fall outside the purview of the Public Premises Act. We have carefully perused the said decision and we are unable to agree with Shri Ganguli. In that case A.P. Sen, J. has observed that the new building had been constructed by the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. after the grant of permission by the lessor, and, therefore, the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. was not in unauthorised occupation of the same within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act. It was also held by the learned Judge that the Express Building constructed by the Express Newspapers Ltd. with the sanction of lessor on plot Nos. 9 and 10 demised on perpetual lease can, by no process of reasoning, be regarded as public premises belonging to the Central Government under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, and therefore, there was no question of the lessor applying for eviction of the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. The aforesaid observations indicate that the learned Judge did not proceed on the basis that cases involving relationship of lessor and lessee fall outside the purview of the Public Premises Act. On the other hand the said observations show that the learned Judge has held that the provisions of the Public Premises Act could not be invoked in the facts of that case.”’ 26. In view of the foregoing discussions, none of the submissions raised by counsel for the petitioner has any substance. There is no error in the order of the Estate Officer directing for eviction of the petitioner and that of the Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. In view of the foregoing discussions, none of the submissions raised by counsel for the petitioner has any substance. There is no error in the order of the Estate Officer directing for eviction of the petitioner and that of the Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. This is not a fit case for interference in the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 27. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. ————