JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment dated 16.3.2010 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 2006 dismissing the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The only contention raised by Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that order of eviction has been passed in this case, without issuing notice to show-cause and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner, was the recognised union at the relevant time. It was provided the premises in question, by the respondents for running its office, from 10.12.2004 to 5.12.2006. 4. Thereafter, the Respondents withdrew the recognition of the petitioner-union and conferred recognition to other union on the basis of election results, and sought to provide premises in question to the recognised union. The appellant moved this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 997 of 2005 for providing the status of recognised union and also to restrain the respondents from evicting it from the premises in question etc. In paragraph 23 thereof, it was clearly said that this eviction proceeding was started against the petitioner. On 28.2.2005 while issuing notice, status quo as existing on that day was ordered till 10th March 2005. On 10.3.2005, no body appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the case was ordered to be put up in due course. Thereafter, no step has been taken in that case. It further appears that an order of eviction from the premises in question was passed on 10.3.2006, against which the petitioner moved this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 1847 of 2006(R) raising the same grievance that no notice was issued and no hearing was provided to the petitioner. It was disposed of on 12.4.2006 with a liberty to file appeal. Petitioner preferred appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned order against which this writ petition has been filed. 5. In the said appeal also, the only point raised by the petitioner was that no notice was served it in terms of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 which was mandatory in nature and was required by natural justice as well. In this writ petition also, as noticed above, this is the only point raised. 6. In this writ petition also, as noticed above, this is the only point raised. 6. The learned lower appellate court has found that notice was issued to the petitioner and in spite of full knowledge, petitioner did not take steps in this eviction proceeding. As already noticed above, from the averments made in WP(C) No. 997 of 2005, itself it is clear that petitioner had full knowledge of this eviction case. But neither steps were taken for continuance/grant of status quo, nor steps were taken in this eviction proceeding. Further, the petitioner could not show, how it is authorised to ratain the premises in question after 5.12.2006. Thus, neither any prejudice, nor injustice has been caused to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, no grounds are made out for interferance with the impugned orders of eviction. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondents, forthwith. Later After the said order was pronounced, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. But there is nothing to show that the respondents are under legal obligation to provide premises for running office to the petitioner or any Union. Thus, the aforesaid order stands.