DAMAYANTI VERMA Vs. LIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose off a batch of four writ petitions bearing WPC No. 4342/07, WPC No. 4344/07, WPC No. 13393/09 & WPC No. 13628/09 filed by the same petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) By WPC No. 4342/07 & WPC No. 4344/07, the petitioner seeks to set aside the common judgment and decree dated 22.5.07 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Estate Officer dated 18.4.06 under section 5 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 was dismissed. By WPC No. 13393/09 & WPC No. 13628/09 the petitioner assails the common order dated 29.10.09 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Estate Officer dated 18.4.06 under section 7 of the PP Act was dismissed.

(3.) Facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details forming the heart of the controversy of these petitions are that the husband of the petitioner late Sh.P.L Verma was a tenant of two premises bearing Flat no. 14/12190 admeasuring 333 sq ft and Flat no. 7/10181 admeasuring 782 sq ft. on the first floor of the building known as the Tropical Building, situated at H Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi which are owned by the respondent Corporation. That the respondent Corporation required the premises for its own bonafide use and hence terminated the tenancy of the petitioner w.e.f 28.2.97 and served a legal notice dated 1.2.97/6.2.97 on the petitioner. That a notice dated 7.1.98 under section 4(1) & 4(2)(b)(ii) & 7(3) of the PP Act was served on the petitioner in respect of the Flat No. 7/10181 and similarly a notice dated 12.1.98 was served in respect of the Flat no. 14/12190 and proceedings under section 5 & 7 of the PP Act were initiated against the petitioner whereby vide order of the Estate Officer dated 18.4.06 the petitioner was declared to be in unauthorized occupation of the premises w.e.f 1.3.97 and was directed to pay damages. Consequently the petitioner filed appeals against the said order which vide impugned orders 22.5.07(for eviction) and 29.10.2009(for damages) in respect of both the premises were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner (now deceased, through her legal representatives) has preferred the present writ petitions.