JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This revision petition Along with CM 2642/99 is filed by the petitioner, Delhi Development Authority(hereinafter referred to as `the DDA’) against the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 2nd November, 1996, passed in PPA613/95. The aforesaid judgment was passed in an appeal, preferred by respondent No.1 herein, i.e., Ganga Automobiles Limited against an eviction order dated 21st March, 1994, passed by the Estate Officer, directing the eviction of the respondent No.1, Ganga Automobiles Limited which is now in liquidation and is represented by the OL’s counsel, Shri S.K. Luthra.
2. The sole reason given by the ADJ in the aforesaid judgment for allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Company against the eviction order dated 21st March, 1994 is that the provisions of Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971(hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) were not followed inasmuch as the Notice dated 12th March, 1990 was not accompanied by any grounds. The ground given in the said notice has been extracted in Para 8 of the aforesaid judgment and reads as follows:
“The land mentioned in the schedule below belongs to Union of India and is under the Management of control of the Delhi Development Authority.”
3. The main reasoning of the impugned judgment is to be found in the following words:
“A reference to the show cause notice dated 12th March, 1990 would show that the Estate Office had not given any reason in the said notice for which the appellant was proposed to be evicted from the suit premises.”
In my view, the judgment of the Additional District Judge is itself self-contradictory inasmuch as after extracting the ground for proposed eviction extracted above it goes on to hold that there was no reason given by the Estate Officer. This finding obviously apart from being self-contradictory is otherwise not sustainable in law. The violation of Section 4 of the Act was only found on the ground that the reason was not given in the Notice dated 12th March, 1990. I have already noticed that the Additional District & Sessions Judge itself has extracted the said ground in Para 7 of the judgment.
4. Accordingly, the Order dated 2nd November, 1996 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The eviction order dated 21st March, 1994 stands restored. The DDA is entitled now to recover the possession of the premises in question in accordance with the eviction Order dated 21st March, 1994. At this stage Mr. Luthra states that there may be some equipments, machinery and goods lying in the premises in question and the value of the same may be determined. After considering the reply of the respondent No.1 that there was only a temporary shed in the premises in question, the premises shall be handed to the DDA on or before 30th April, 2003, subject to the deposit of Rs.1 lac with the OL. It is open to the OL to remove any structure and equipment lying in the premises in question prior to handing over the possession to the DDA.
5. In view of the above, the revision petition stands allowed and disposed of as such.