NASEERUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of a batch of six writ petitions bearing Nos. W.P.(C) 4152/2007, 4153/2007, 4160/2007, 4163/2007, 4164/2007 & 4166/2007.

(2.) IN these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of the common order dated 9.5.2007 passed by the learned ADJ in PPA No. 87/2005 in exercise of appellate jurisdiction conferred under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971. The petitioners also seek quashing of the common eviction order dated 25th April, 2005 passed by the learned Estate Officer in respect of the premises under the occupation of the present petitioners.

(3.) MS . Takiyar, counsel for the petitioners, submits that both the courts below i.e. Estate Officer as well as the learned ADJ failed to consider the fact that the notice of termination served by the respondent as well as show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act itself are illegal and void as the only ground disclosed in the legal notice for declaring the petitioners as unauthorized occupants in respect of their premises is that they were using their premises contrary to the letting out purpose. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the premises were let out by the predecessor of the respondent i.e. Nizam of Hyderabad for running of various shops, small time trades, business etc. in favour of the petitioners right from the inception of the letting. Counsel further submits that in the rent receipts the specific trades were duly disclosed. Inviting attention of this Court to some of the receipts filed in W.P.(C) 4152/2007 the counsel point out that the letting purpose has been clearly mentioned as running of a meat shop. Similarly in other cases also, counsel submits that the letting purpose has been disclosed indicating the name of the trade for which the shops were let out in favour of the petitioners. Counsel further submits that the petitioners had placed on record these receipts before the Estate Officer as well as before the Appellate Court and these receipts pertain to the period from 1955 onwards but both the courts below have overlooked the said receipts and wrongly held the letting purpose as residential. Counsel further submits that once the documentary evidence clearly indicating the letting purpose was placed on record, the same could not have been ignored by the courts below. Counsel further submits that no documentary evidence was placed on record by the respondent to contradict or rebut the said documentary evidence placed by the petitioners in the shape of rent receipts. In support of her arguments counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments: