GONDALS PRESS Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra -court appeal impugns the order dated 31.10.2012 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.3721/2012 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed impugning the order dated 31.05.2012 of the District Judge exercising powers as an Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 27.03.2012 of the Estate Officer of the respondent Bank of eviction of the appellant from an area comprising of 2223 sq. ft. on the Ground and Mezzanine Floor of property No.12/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

(2.) THE challenge by the appellant is threefold. Firstly, it is contended that prior to the respondent Bank acquiring the said property in an auction sale, the same had been re -entered by the Land & Development Office (L&DO) of the Government of India being the lessor of the land underneath the property and thus no title was acquired by the respondent Bank and the said property was not "public premises" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the PP Act, for the Estate Officer of the respondent Bank to pass an order with respect thereto. Secondly, it is contended that no bona fide requirement, on which ground the appellant was sought to be evicted, had been established and rather it stood admitted that the eviction of the appellant was with profit motive. Lastly, it is contended that no proper opportunity to lead evidence was given to the appellant by the Estate Officer of the respondent Bank.

(3.) AS far as the second ground aforesaid of challenge is concerned, the finding of the premises being required by the respondent Bank is a finding of fact, not interferable in writ jurisdiction much less in an appeal arising therefrom. The appellant admittedly is an old tenant in the premises at a meager rent. This Court in Iyer & Son Pvt. Ltd. Vs. LIC of India (2007) X AD (Delhi) 643 affirmed recently in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Damyanti Verma and in Indian Institute of Public Opinion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India 2012 (130) DRJ 157 has held a Public Sector Bank as the respondent to be fully justified in endeavouring to earn maximum out of its properties. No case thus for interference with the findings of the Estate Officer affirmed by the District Judge, of the requirement of the premises by the respondent Bank for its own use is made out. We may also notice that there is no challenge to the fact that the lease of the appellant of the said premises stands validly determined and whereafter the appellant is an unauthorized occupant of the said premises and is not entitled to retain possession thereof.