Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors [1990] INSC 225 (7 August 1990)
Agrawal, S.C. (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J) Mukharji, Sabyasachi (Cj) Ray, B.C. (J) Kania, M.H. Saikia, K.N. (J)
CITATION: 1991 AIR 855 1990 SCR (3) 649 1990 SCC (4) 406 JT 1990 (3) 417 1990 SCALE (2)200
ACT:
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14, 22, 50 and 54-Tenant of `Public Premises'--Tenancy terminated or ex- pires under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occu- pants) Act, 1971--Whether entitled to invoke the statutory protection of Rent Control Act, 1958.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971' Sections 2(e), 4(0 and 7(3)--`Public Premises'--Whether includes premises belonging to Nationa- lised banks--Tenant in such premises--Tenancy expires or is terminated--Whether can invoke protection of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
HEAD NOTE:
The appellants/petitioners were tenants in the premises belonging to the respondent Banks/Life Insurance Corporation of India. Their tenancy had expired or had been terminated by the respondents and eviction proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Writ peti- tions under Article 226 were filled by the appellants in the High Court challenging the orders of eviction passed against them, which were dismissed; hence these appeals. The writ petitioners moved this Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution against the notices of termination of tenancy issued to them.
The Public Premises Act of 1971 was preceded by two enactments the Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1950, and the Public Premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1958 which were declared unconstitutional by different High Courts.
Jagu Singh v. M. Shaukat Ali, (58 Cal. W.N. 1066); Satish Chander & Anr. v. Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1958 Punjab 1; Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub Area v. Ganga Pra- sad, AIR 1956 All. 507; P.L. Mehar etc. v. D.R. Khanna, etc., AIR 1971 Delhi 1 and Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Anr., [1967] 3 SCR 399.
650 This led to the enactment of the Public Premises Act in 1971. The validity of this act was upheld by this Court in Hari Singh v. The Military Estate Officer, [1973] 1 SCR 515.
Before this Court, the contentions were advanced by the parties mainly on two questions (i) whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act were applicable to the Premises belonging to a nationalised bank; and (ii) whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act override the provi- sions of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
In regard to the applicability of the Public Premises act, it was inter alia contended that the premises belonging to a nationalised bank or insurance company did not fall within the ambit of the definition of 'Public Premises' contained in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act for the reason that the nationalised bank was not a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 and it was also not a corporation established by or under a Central Act. On the other hand, it was contended that the respond- ents being nationalised bank, was a corporation established by a Central Act, viz., the Bank Nationalisation Act, and the premises belonging to a nationalised bank were 'public premises' under section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act.
In regard to the second question, each side claimed that the enactment relied upon by it was a special statute and the other enactment was general, and also invoked the not obstante clause contained in the enactment relied upon. In this connection, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the Public Premises Act having been enacted by Parlia- ment in exercise of legislative power under Article 246(1) of the Constitution in respect of matters enumerated in the Union List would ipso-facto override the provisions of the Rent Control Act enacted in exercise of the legislative powers under Article 246(4) in respect of matters enumerated in the concurrent list.
Dismissing the appeals and the writ petition, this Court,
HELD: (1) The provisions of the Public Premises Act, to the extent they cover premises failing within the ambit of the Rent Control Act, override the provisions of the Rent Control Act, and a person in unauthorised occupation of public premises under Section 2(e) of the Act cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act. [694D-E] (2) After the second world war there has been develop- ment of a new pattern of public corporation in England as an instrument of plan- 651 ning in the mixed economy. The general characteristics of such a public corporation is that it is normally created by a special statute; it has no shares and no share holders, either private or public, and its share holder, in the symbolic sense, is the nation represented through Government and Parliament; and it has the legal status of a corporate body with independent legal personality. There has been a similar growth of this type of public corporation in other.
countries. This trend is also evident in our country. since Independence and a number of such public corporations have been constituted by Acts of Parliament. [668A-C] (3) The expression 'Corporation' in Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act would include public corporations of the new pattern constituted under the Central Acts where- in the entire paid-up capital vests in the Central Govern- ment. [670G] S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, [1981] 3 SCR 864, distinguished.
(4) In order to constitute a corporation it is not necessary that there should be shareholders or members and that in the new pattern of public corporation that has developed there are no shareholders or members. [671G] Bank of New South Wales & Ors. v. The Common-wealth, [1948] 76 CLR 1 and R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 530, referred to.
Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Delhi Development Authori- ty, [1985] 55 Company Cases 81, overruled.
(5) Provisions of the Banks Nationalisation Act show that the nationalised Bank has been constituted as a dis- tinct juristic person by the Act and it is owned by the Central Government. They further indicate that the nationa- lised bank has all the attributes of the new pattern of public corporation. [667B]
(6) The object of the legislation in enlarging the definition of 'public premises' in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act is to make available the machinery of the Act for evicting unauthorised occupants not only from the premises belonging to the Central Government but also from premises belonging to Companies, Corporation and statu- tory bodies in which the Central Government has a substan- tial interest. [670D-E] 652
(7) Under Section 2(e)(2)(i) premises belonging to a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one percent of the paid-up capital is held by the Central Government, are to be treated as public enterprises. It could not be the intention of Parliament that premises belonging to public corporations whose entire paid-up capital vests in the Central Government and who are the instrumentalities of State would be excluded from the ambit of the definition of 'public premises'. [670E-G]
(8) Keeping in view the provisions of the Banks Nation- alisation Act the nationalised bank is a corporation estab- lished by a Central Act and it is owned and controlled by the Central Government. The premises belonging to a nationa- lised bank are public premises under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act. [671 H; 672A]
(9) There is no warrant for confining the scope of the definition of 'public premises' contained in section 2(e) to premises used for residential purposes only and to exclude premises used for commercial purposes from its ambit. [672D] Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer, [1973] 1 SCR 515, referred to.
(10) No distinction can be made between premises used for residential purposes and premises used for commercial purposes in the matter of eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises and the consideration which necessitate providing a speedy machinery for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises apply equally to both the types of public premises. [673B-C]
(11) The definition of the expression 'unauthorised occupation' contained in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act is in two parts. The second part of the definition is inclusive in nature and expressly covers continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoev- er. The words "whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer" in this part of the definition are wide in ampli- tude and would cover a lease because lease is a mode of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. [673F; G-H; 674B] Brigadier K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1954 Bom 358, distinguished.
653 Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 203, and Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] Suppl. 3 SCR 302, referred to.
(12) It is true that there is no requirement in the Public Premises Act that the Estate Officer must be a person well versed in law. But, that, by itself, cannot be a ground for excluding from the ambit of the said Act premises in unauthorised occupation of persons who obtained possession of the said premises under a lease when the Public Premises Act and the Rules framed thereunder provide for a right of appeal of the District Judge against an order of the Estate Officer. which shows that the final order that is passed is by a judicial officer. [675F-H] Maganlal Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 1, referred to.
(13) As regards rent control legislations enacted by the State legislatures, the position is well settled that such legislation fail within the ambit of entries 6, 7 and 13 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. [682E] Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundari Devi & Anr., [1970] 1 SCR 443; V. Dhanpal Chettiar's v. Yesodai Ammal, [1980] 1 SCR 334; Jai Singh Jairam Tyagi Etc. v. Mamanchand Ratilal Agarwal & Ors., [1980] 3 SCR 224; Accountant and Secretari- al Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 324, referred to.
(14) The Rent Control Act has been enacted by Parliament in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of the legislative power conferred under Article 246(4) of the Constitution which empowers Parliament to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List. [682G]
(15) The Public Premises Act deals with Government property as well as property belonging to other legal enti- ties mentioned in clauses (2) and (3) of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act. In so far as it relates to eviction of unauthorised occupants from premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government, the Public Premises Act would fail within entry 32 of List I being law with respect to a property of the Union. The property belonging to the various legal entities mentioned in clauses (2) and (3) of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act cannot be regarded as property of 654 the Union and the Public Premises Act cannot be held to have been enacted under entry 32 of List I in respect of the said properties. In so far as it deals with a lessee or licensee of premises other than premises belonging to the Central Govt; the Public Premises Act has been enacted in exercising the legislative power in respect of matters enumerated in the concurrent list. [682H; 683A-C]
(16) Both the statutes, viz. the Public Premises Act and the Rent Control Act, have been enacted by the same legisla- ture, Parliament, in exercise of the legislative powers in respect of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List.
[684C] Accountant and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India And Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 324; Smt. Saiyada Mossarrat v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., [1989] 1 SCC 272 and L.S. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., AIR 1980 MP. 106, referred to.
(17) The Rent Control Act makes a departure from the general law regulating the relationship of landlord and tenant contained in the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as it makes provision for determination of standard rent, it specifies the grounds on which a landlord can seek the eviction of a tenant, it prescribes the forum for adjudica- tion of disputes between landlords and tenants and the procedure which has to be followed in such proceedings. The Rent Control Act can, therefore, be said to be a special statute regulating the relationship of landlord and tenant in the Union Territory of Delhi. [686D-F]
(18) The Public Premises Act is also a special statute relating to eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises. [689E] Jain Ink Manufacturing Company v. Life Insurance Corpo- ration of India & Anr., [1981] 1 SCR 498, referred to.
(19) Both the enactments, namely, the Rent Control Act and the Public Premises Act, are special statutes in rela- tion to the matters dealt with therein. Therefore, the exception contained in the principle that a subsequent general law cannot derogate from an earlier special law cannot be invoked and in accordance with the principle that the later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws, the Public Premises Act must prevail over the Rent Control Act. [686H; 687A] J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1961] 3 SCR 185; U.P. State Elec- tricity Board v. Hari 655 Shankar Jain, [1979] 1 SCR 355 and Life Insurance Corpora- tion v. D.J. Bahadur, [1981] 1 SCR 1083, referred to.
(20) In the case of inconsistency between the provisions of two enactments, both of which can be regarded as Special in nature. the conflict has to be resolved by reference to the purpose and policy underlying the two enactments and the clear intendment conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions therein. [688G] Shri Ram Narain v. The Simla Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd., [1956] SCR 603; Kumaon Motor Owners' Union Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1966] 2 SCR 121 and Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi Lal, [1977] 2 SCR 421, referred to.
(21) Keeping in view the object and purpose underlying both the enactments viz., the Rent Control Act and the Public Premises Act, the provisions of the Public Premises have to be construed as overriding the provisions contained in the Rent Control Act. [690H] The Parliament was aware of the non obstante clauses contained in Section 14 and 22 and the provisions contained in Sections 50 and 54 of the Rent Control Act when it enact- ed the Public Premises Act containing a specific provision in Section 15 barring jurisdiction of all courts (which would include the Rent Controller under the Rent Control Act). This indicates that Parliament intended that the provisions of the Public Premises Act would prevail over the provisions of the Rent Control Act inspite of the above mentioned provisions contained in the Rent Control Act. [691A-B]
(23) The scope of the provisions of the Public Premises Act cannot be cut down on the basis of an apprehension that the corporations may be induced to earn profits by purchas- ing property in possession of tenants at a low price and after buying such property evict the tenants after terminat- ing their tenancy and thereafter sell the said property at a much higher value. Every activity of a public authority especially in the background of the assumption on which such authority enjoys immunity from the rigours of the Rent Act, must be informed by reason and guided by the public inter- est. [693F; E-G] M/s Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, [1989] 3 SCC 293, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 1986 Etc.
656 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.1986 of the Delhi High Court in CW No. 1295 of 1986.
K.K. Venugopal, A.K. Ganguli, Yogeshwar Prasad, P.R. Seetharaman, S.K. Gupta and A.K. Srivastava for the Appel- lants.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Kapil Sibbal, Addi- tional Solicitor General. G.L. Sanghi, S. Ganesh, Mrs. Sushma Suri, EMS Anam, Atul Namda. Aman Vachher, S.K. Mehta, Kailash Vasdev and S.R. Srivastava for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.C. AGRAWAL, J. The common question which arises for consideration in these appeals, by special leave, and the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is, whether a person who was inducted as a tenant in premises, which are public premises for the purpose of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Premises Act'), and whose tenancy has expired or has been terminated, can be evicted from the said premises as being a person in unautho- rised-occupation of the premises under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and whether such a person can invoke the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act'). In short, the ques- tion is, whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act would override the provisions of the Rent Control Act in relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the enactments.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2368 and 2369 of 1986 relate to the premises which are part of a building situated at 5 Parlia- ment Street, New Delhi. The said building originally be- longed to Punjab National Bank Ltd., a banking company.
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (Appellate No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 1986) and M/s Sahu Jain Services Ltd. (Appellant No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 2369 of 1986) were tenants of premises located in the said building since July 1st, 1958. As a result of the enactment of the Banking Companies (Acquisi- tion and Transfer of Undertakings) Act. 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Banks Nationalisation Act'), the under- taking of the Punjab National Bank Ltd., was transferred and vested in Punjab National Bank a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the said Act and the aforesaid appellants became the tenants of Punjab National Bank. By notices dated May 18, 1971 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act , the tenancies of both the appel- lants were terminated by 657 Punjab National Bank, with effect from, November, 30, 1971.
Thereafter, the said Bank initiated proceedings under the Rent Control Act against both the appellants. In those proceedings an objection was raised by the said appellants that proceedings for eviction under the Rent Control Act were not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in the Public Premises Act. During the pendency of the said proceedings under the Rent Control Act, proceedings were initiated by the Estate Officer against the appellants under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and while the said proceedings under Public Premises Act were pending the earlier proceedings initiated under the Rent Control Act were dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, by orders dated August 6, 1979. In the proceedings, under the Public Premises Act, the Estate Officer passed orders for eviction against the appellants and the appeals filed by the appellants against the said orders of the Estate Officer were dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Delhi. The appellants filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the Delhi High Court. The said writ peti- tions were dismissed by the High Court by orders dated May 30, 1986. Aggrieved by the said orders of the High Court, the appellants have filed these appeals after obtaining special leave to appeal.
Civil Appeal No. 3725 of 1986 relates to an office room in the Allahabad Bank Building situated at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The said building belongs to Allahabad Bank, a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Banks Nationalisation Act. The said premises were let out to Pt. K.B. Parsai, the appellant in this appeal, for a period of three years with effect from, February 1, 1982.
After the expiry of the said period eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Public Premises Act were initi- ated to evict the appellant and in those proceedings the Estate Officer passed an order dated March 29, 1986. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein he challenged the validity of the order passed by the Estate Officer. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court by order dated August 7, 1986. The appellant has filed this appeal against the said decision of the Delhi High Court after obtaining Spe- cial Leave to Appeal.
Writ Petition No. 864 of 1985, relates to premises in the building located at 10, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The said building originally belonged to Bharat Insurance Company Limited, as Insurance Company which was carrying on life insurance business. M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., (peti- tioner No. 1 in the writ petition) was in occupation of a part of the said property as a tenant under M/s Bharat 658 Insurance Co. Ltd. since 1948. The life insurance business was nationalised under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 whereby the Life Insurance Corporation was established and the life insurance business carried on by the various insurance companies, including M/s Bharat Insurance Company Ltd., was nationalised and vested in the Life Insurance Corporation. As a result petitioner No. 1 became a tenant of the Life Insurance Corporation. The Life Insurance Corpora- tion gave a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating a tenancy of petitioner No. 1 with effect from, August 31, 1953 and thereafter proceedings for eviction were initiated against petitioner No. 1 under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and notices dated December 15, 1984 were issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4(1) and Section 7(3) of the Public Premises Act.
Feeling aggrieved by these notices the petitioners have filed the writ petition.
Before we proceed to deal with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants in the appeals and for the petitioners in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners') it would be relevant to advert to the legislative history of Public Premises Act.
The Public Premises Act was preceded by two such enact- ments. The first enactments was the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1950 Act') which was enacted by Parliament to provide for the eviction of certain persons from Government premises and for certain matters connected therewith. It was confined, in its application, to premises (a building or a part of a build- ing) belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by the Central Government and it empowered the competent authority tO evict a person in unauthorised occupation of such prem- ises after issuing a notice to such person. The 1950 Act did not define the expression "unauthorised occupation" and it also did not prescribe the procedure to be followed by the competent authority before passing the order of eviction.
There was a provision for appeal to the Central Government against the order of the competent authority. The 1950 Act was declared as unconstitutional by the Calcutta High Court (in Jagu Singh v. M. Shaukat Ali, 58 Cal. WN 1066) and by the Punjab High Court (in Satish Chander & Anr. v. Delhi Im- provement Trust, Etc., AIR 1958 Punjab 1) on the ground that it imposed unreasonable restriction on the fight of the citizens to acquire, hold and dispose of property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and by the Allahabad High Court (in Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub Area v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1956 All. 507) on the ground that it was violative 659 of the rights to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Thereupon Parliament enacted the Public Premises (Evic- tion of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1958 Act'). In the 1958 Act, the defini- tion of Public Premises was enlarged to include, in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi, premises belonging to Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any municipal committee or notified area committee and premises belonging to Delhi Development Authority. In the 1958 Act, the expression "unauthorised occupation" was defined. It also laid down the procedure to be followed by the Estate Officer for evicting a person in unauthorised occupation of public premises and it made provision for filing an appeal against every order of the Estate Officer before the District Judge or such other Judicial Officer in that district of not less than ten years standing as the District Judge may designate in that behalf. In Northern India Caterers Private Limited v. The State of Punjab & Anr., [1967] 3 SCR 399 Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 was held to be void by this Court on the ground that the said provision conferred an additional remedy over and above the remedy by way of suit and that by providing two alternative remedies to the Government and in leaving it to the unguided discretion of the Collector to resort to one or the other and to pick and choose some of those in occupa- tion of public properties and premises for the application of the more drastic procedure under Section 5, the said provision was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The provisions contained in the Punjab Act were similar to those contained in the 1958 Act. Keeping in view the deci- sion of this Court in Northern India Caterers Private Limit- ed's case (supra), Parliament enacted Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1968 whereby the 1958 Act was amended and Section 10E was intro- duced and a bar was created to the jurisdiction of civil court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of eviction of any person in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or the recovery of the arrears of the rent or damages payable under the provisions of the 1958 Act. The Delhi High Court (in P.L. Mehra etc. v. D.R. Khanna, etc., AIR 1971 Delhi 1)held that whole of the 1958 Act was void under Article 15(2) being violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and the amendment of 1968 was ineffective- This led to the enactment of the Public Premises Act by Parliament in 1971. It was brought into effect from 16th September, 1958, 660 the date on which the 1958 Act came into force. The provi- sions of the Public Premises Act are similar to those con- tained in the 1958 Act. The definition of 'public premises' contained in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act has been widened so as to include premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of a company, as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid-up capital is held by the Central Government as well as premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any corporation (not being a compa- ny, as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act in 1956, or a local authority) established by or under a Central Act and owned and controlled by the Central Government. It contains certain additional provisions, providing for offences and penalties (Section 11), liability of heirs and representa- tives (Section 13) recovery of rent etc. as an arrear of land revenue (Section 14) and bar of jurisdiction of Courts (Section 15). The validity of the Public Premises Act was upheld by this Court in Hari Singh & Ors. v. The Military Estate Officer & Anr., [1973] 1 SCR 5 15.
The Public Premises Act was amended in 1980 by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amend- ment Act, 1980, whereby the definition of 'public premises' in Section 2(e) was amended to include premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of certain autonomous and statutory organisations, viz., any University established or incorporated by any Central Act, any Institute incorporated by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961, any Board of Trustees constituted under the major Port Trusts Act, 1963, and the Bhakra Management Board and as well as premises belonging to or taken on lease by any Company which is subsidiary of a Company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid-up capital is held by the Central Govern- ment. By the said Amending Act of 1980, the total period taken in eviction proceedings was also sought to be cur- tailed by reducing the period for showing cause against notice of eviction, the period within which an unauthorised occupant should vacate the premises after eviction order has been passed and the period for filing an appeal against the order of an Estate Officer. By the said Amending Act of 1980 provisions were also made, by inserting Sections 5A, 5B and 5C, to deal with the squatting or spreading of goods on or against or in front of any public premises and removal of unauthorised constructions or encroachments on public prem- ises. The Public Premises Act was further amended in 1984 by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1984 whereby certain further amendments were made to provide for increased penalties and 661 making the offences under the Act cognisable and to enable the Estate Officers to exercise their powers under the Act effectively.
As stated in the preamble, the Public Premises Act has been enacted to provide for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and, for certain incidental matters. In Section 2, various expressions have been de- fined. The definitions of the following expressions which are of relevance are reproduced as under:
"(c) "Premises" means any land or any building or part of a building and includes-- (i) the garden, grounds and out houses. if any, appertaining to such building or part of a building, and (ii) any fitting affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof;" "(e) "Public Premises" means-- (1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisi- tioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes any such premises which have been placed by that Government, whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amend- ment act, 1980 under the control of Secretariat of either House of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that Secretariat;
(2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of,-- (i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government or any Company which is a subsidiary (within the meaning of the Act) of the first mentioned company, (ii) any corporation (not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956), or a local authority) established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government, 662 (iii) any University established or incorporated by any Central Act, (iv) any Institute incorporated by the Institutes of Tech- nology Act, 1961 (59 of 1961);
(v) any Board of Trustees constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (38 of 1963);
(vi) the Bhakra Management Board constituted under Section 79 of the Punjab Recoganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966) and that Board as and when renamed as the Bhakra-Beas Management Board under Sub-section (6) of Section 80 of the Act; and (3) in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi-- (i) any premises belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any municipal committee or notified area committee and (ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Author- ity, whether such premises are in the possession of, or leased out by the said Authority." "(g) "Unauthorised Occupation", in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been expired for any reason whatsoever." Section 3 makes provision for appointment by Central Govern- ment of gazetted officer of Government or officers of equal rank of the statutory authority as Estate Officers. Section 4 relates to issue of show cause against order of eviction and provides as under:
"(1) If the Estate Officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the Estate Officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling 663 upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.
(2) The notice shall-- (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises ,-- (i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof;
and (ii) to appear before the Estate Officer on the date speci- fied in the notice alongwith the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.
(3) The Estate Officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other con- spicuous part of the public premises and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned.
(4) Where the Estate Officer knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed." Section 5 relates to eviction of unauthorised occupants and provides as under' "(1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under clause (b) of sub- 664 section (2) of Section 4, the estate officer is satisfied that occupation of public premises is unauthorised, the estate officer may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be af- fixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises.
(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publication under sub-section (1) whichever is later, the estate officer of any other officer duly authorised by the estate officer in this behalf may after the date so specified or after the expiry of the period aforesaid, whichever is later, evict that person from, and take possession of the public premises and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be neces- sary." Section 5A provides for removal of unauthorised construc- tions/structures or fixtures, cattle or other animal from public premises. Section 5B deals with demolition of unau- thorised constructions. Section 5C empowers the Estate Officer to seal unauthorised constructions. Section 6 pro- vides for disposal of property left on public premises by unauthorised occupants. Section 7 empowers the Estate Offi- cer to require payment of rent or damages on account of use and occupation of public premises alongwith interest by the person found in unauthorised occupation. Section 8 lays down that an Estate Officer shall, for the purpose of holding any inquiry under the Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, when trying to suit in respect of certain matters, viz. summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, requiring discovery and production of documents;
and any other matter which may be prescribed. Section 9 provides for an appeal from every order of the Estate Offi- cer in respect of any public premises passed under Sections 5, 5B, 5C and 7 to an appellate officer who shall be a district judge of the district in which the public premises are situated or such other judicial officer in the district of not less than ten years' standing as the district judge may designate in this behalf. It also prescribes the period of limitation for filing such appeals and also lays down that the appeal shall be disposed of by the appellate offi- cer as expeditiously as possible. Sections 10 attaches finality to the orders 665 made by an Estate Officer or appellate officer and provides that the said orders shall not be called in questions in any original suit application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. Section 11 provides for offences and penalties and Section 11A lays down mat the offences under Section 11 would be treated as cognizable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 15 relates to bar of jurisdiction and it provides as under:
"No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of-- (a) the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occu- pation of any such public premises, or (b) the removal of any building, structure of fixture or goods, cattle or other animal from any public premises under Section 5-A, or (C) the demolition of any building or other structure made, or ordered to be made, under Section 5B, or (cc) the sealing of any erection or work or of any public premises under Section 5-C, (d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or damages payable under sub-section (2), or interest payable under sub-section (2-A) of that section, (e) the recovery of-- (i) costs of removal of any building, structure or fixture or g.gods. cattle or other animal under Section 5-A, or (ii) expenses of demolition under Section 5-B, or (iii) costs awarded to the Central Government or statutory authority under sub-section (5) of Section 9, or (iv) any portion of such rent, damages, cost of removal, expenses of demolition or costs awarded to the Central Government or the statutory authority." 666 In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 18 of the Public Premises Act, the Central Government has made the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Rule, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Premises Rules'). Rule 5 of said Rules relates to holding of in- quiries and Rule 9 relates to procedure in appeals.
We will first deal with the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the scope of the definition of the expression 'Public Premises' con- tained in Section 2(e) and 'unauthorised occupation', con- tained in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act.
As mentioned earlier, the appeals relate to premises belonging to nationalised Banks, viz. Punjab National Bank and Allahabad Bank, constituted under the provisions of the Banks Nationalisation Act. It has been urged by Shri Yogesh- wer Prasad, that the premises belonging to a nationalised bank do not fall within the ambit of the definition of 'Public Premises' contained in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, for the reason that nationalised bank is not a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 and it is also not a corporation established by or under a Central Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent banks is that the nationalised bank is a corpora- tion established by a Central Act, viz. the Banks Nationali- sation Act, and the premises belonging to a nationalised bank are 'public premises' under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act. The question which, therefore, requires to be considered is whether a nationalised bank is a corpo- ration established by or under a Central Act and is owned or controlled by the Central Government.
The nationalised banks have been established under the Banks Nationalisation Act, wherein the nationalised banks have been described as 'corresponding new bank'. In sub- section (i) of Section 3 of the Banks Nationalisation Act, it has been provided that on the commencement of the said Act, there shall be constituted such corresponding new banks as are specified in the First Schedule. In subsection (2) of Section 3, it is laid down that the paid-up capital of every corresponding new bank constituted under sub-section (1) shall, until any provision is made in this behalf in any scheme made under Section 9, be equal to the paid-up capital of the existing bank in relation to which it is the corre- sponding new bank. Sub-section(3) of Section 3 provides that the entire capital of the new bank shall stand vested in, and allotted to the Central Government. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 lays down that every corresponding new bank shall be a body corpo- 667 rate with perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of the said Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to contract, and may sue and be sued in its name. From the aforesaid provisions contained in Section 3 of the Banks Nationalisation act it is evident that the nationalised banks have been established under the provisions of the said Act and the same are distinct juris- tic persons with perpetual succession and the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and having the right to sue and be sued in their own name and further that the entire capital of the said banks is vested in the Central Government, meaning thereby, that the said banks are owned by the Central Government.
Shri Yogeshwer Prasad has pointed out that, in view of Section 3(4) of the Banks Nationalisation Act, the nationa- lised bank is a body corporate and not a corporation and that there is a distinction between a body corporate and a corporation inasmuch as a body corporate includes bodies, such as companies, co-operative societies, etc., which are not corporations. Reliance has been placed in this regard on the decision of Delhi High Court in Oriental Bank of Com- merce and Another v. Delhi Development Authority and Anoth- er, [1985] 55 Company Cases 81. We find no substance in this contention.
In English law a corporation has been defined as "a body of persons or an office which is recognised by the law has having a personality which is distinct from the separate personalities of the members of the body or the personality of the individual holder for the time being of the office in question." (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 9, Para 1201). Generally speaking, corporations are of two kinds; corporation aggregate and corporation sole. A corporation aggregate has been described as an incorporated group of co-existing persons and a corporation sole as an incorporated series of successive persons, (Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th Edition P 308. The distinctive feature of a corporation are that it has the capacity of continuous existence and succession, notwithstanding changes in its membership and it possesses the capacity of taking, holding and conveying property, entering into contracts. suing and being sued, and exercising such other powers and priviledges conferred on it by law of its creation just as a natural person may (See S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi & Ors., [1981] 3 SCR 864. Corporations aggregate may be public or private. A public corporation is a corporation formed for a public purpose e.g. local government authori- ties, and it is usually incorporated by a public general Act of Parliament. A private corporation is a corporation formed for profit 668 e.g. a limited company, and it is usually incorporated under a statutory enactment. After the second world war there has been development of a new pattern of public corporations in England as an instrument of planning in the mixed economy.
The general characteristics of such a public corporation is that it is normally created by a special statute; it has no shares and no shareholders either private or public, and its shareholder, in the symbolic sense, is the nation represent- ed through Government and Parliament; the responsibility of the public corporation is to the Government, represented by the competent Minister and through the Minister to Parlia- ment; the administration of the public corporation is en- tirely in the hands of a board which is appointed by the competent Minister; and it has the legal status of a corpo- rate body with independent legal personality. (See W. Fried- man: The New Public Corporations and the Law [1947] 12 Mod. LR 234-236.) There is a similar growth of this type of public corporation in other countries. This trend is also evident in our country since independence and a number of such public corporations have been constituted by Acts of Parliament.
The distinction between such a public corporation and a corporation generally known in law has been explained in the following observations of Denning L.J., as he then was:-- "The Transport Act, 1947, brings into being the British Transport Commission, which is a statutory corporation of a kind comparatively new to English law. It has many of the qualities which belong to corporations of other kinds to which we have been accustomed. It has, for instance, defined powers which it cannot exceed; and it is directed by a group of men whose duty it is to see that those powers are proper- ly used. It may own property, carry on business, borrow and lend money, just as any other corporation may do, so long as it keeps within the bounds which Parliament has set. But the significant difference in this corporation is that there are no shareholders to subscribe the capital or to have any voice in its affairs. The money which the Corporation needs is not raised by the issue of shares but by borrowings and its borrowing is not served by debentures; but is guaranteed by the Treasury. If it cannot repay, the loss falls on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom; that is to say, on the taxpayer. There are no shareholders to elect the direc- tors or to fix their remuneration. There are no profits to be made or distributed." (Tamfin v. Hannaford, [1950] 1 KB 18).
669 Reference has already been made to the provisions of the Banks Nationalisation Act which show that the nationalised bank has been constituted as a distinct juristic person by the Act and it is owned by the Central Government. There are other provisions in the Banks Nationalisation Act which show that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the business of the bank is vested in a Board of Directors constituted by the Central Government and the Central Government has the power to remove a person from the membership of the Board of Directors (Section 7(2) & 7(3) and in the discharge of its functions the Bank is to be guided by such directions in regard to matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may, after consultation with the Governor of the Reserve Bank, give (Section 8). This indicates that the nationalised bank has all the attributes of the new pattern of public corpora- tion.
Merely because the expression 'body corporate' has-been used in relation to the nationalised banks in Section 3(4) of the Banks Nationalisation Act and the expression 'corpo- ration' has not been used, does not mean that the nationa- lised bank is not a corporation. The expression 'body corpo- rate' is used in legal parlance to mean a 'public or private corporation' (Black's Law Dictionary p. 159).
Shri Yogeshwer Prasad has urged that in order to consti- tute a corporation there must exist persons, i.e. members, composing it, and that this element is missing in the natio- nalised banks inasmuch as the Banks Natiolisation Act does not provide for any membership to these banks. This conten- tion is without any merit because, as noticed earlier, in the new pattern of public corporations which have developed, there are no shares and no shareholders, either public or private, and its shareholder, in the symbolic sense, is the nation represented through Government and Parliament. A similar contention was raised before the High Court of Australia in the Bank of New South Wales & Ors. v. The Commonwealth, [1948] 76 C.L.R. 19 in relation to the Common- wealth Bank established as a body corporate by the Common- wealth Bank Act, 1945. While rejecting this contention, Latham C.J. has observed:
"The Commonwealth Parliament has declared that the bank is a corporation and the Court must on this, as on many previous occasions, accept that the bank (though it has no corpora- tors) exists as a new kind of juristic person." (p. 227) 670 Similarly Dixon J. has observed:
"Although the Commonwealth Bank is declared to be a body corporate there are no corporators. I see no reason to doubt the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament, for a purpose within its competence, to create a juristic person without identifying an individual or a group of natural persons with it, as the living constituent or constituents of the corporation. In other legal systems an abstraction or even an inanimate physical thing has been made an artificial person as the object of rights and duties." (p. 36 1) It may also be mentioned that in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 530 this Court, while referring to nationalised banks constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969, has treated the nationalised banks as corporations.
While construing the expression 'corporation' in Section 2(e) (2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act it cannot be ignored that the object of the legislation in enlarging the defini- tion of 'public premises' in Section 2(e) is to make avail- able the machinery of the Act for evicting unauthorised occupants not only from the premises belonging to the Cen- tral Government but also from premises belonging to Compa- nies, Corporations and statutory bodies in which the Central Government has a substantial interest. Under Section 2(e)(2)(i) premises belonging to a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid-up capital is held by the Central Government, are to be treated as public premises. It could not be the intention of Parliament that premises belonging to public corporations whose entire paid-up capital vests in the Central Government and who are the instrumentalities of State would be excluded from the ambit of the definition of 'public premises'. In our opinion,. therefore, the expres- sion 'corporation' in Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act would include public corporations of the new pattern constituted under the Central Acts wherein the entire paid-up capital vests in the Central Government.
Shri Yogeshwere Prasad has placed reliance on the deci- sion of this Court in S.S. Dhanoa's case (supra) wherein this Court has considered the question whether the Co-opera- tive Store Ltd., a cooperative society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies 671 Act, 1925 is a corporation established by or under a Cen- tral, Provincial or State Act, for the purposes of clause Twelfth of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code . This Court has observed that a corporation established by or under an Act of legislature could only mean a body corporate which owes its existence and not merely its corporate status to the Act and a distinction has been drawn between a corpora- tion established by or under an Act and a body incorporated under an Act. It has been held that the Co-operative Store Ltd., which is a society registered under the Bombay Co- operative Societies Act, 1925, is not a statutory body because it is not created by a statute and that it is a body created by an act of a group of individuals in accordance with the provisions of a Statute. This decision does not lend any assistance to the contention of Shri Yogeshwer Prasad.
In Oriental Bank of Commerce's case (Supra) the over- ruled question for consideration was, whether the Chairman of a nationalised bank is a public servant and sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure was neces- sary to prosecute him. M.L. Jain, J. has held that the nationalised bank is a body corporate and not a corporation within the meaning of clause Twelfth of Section 21 I.P.C. and, therefore, the Chairman of the nationalised bank is not a public servant under Section 21 I.P.C. The learned Judge has further held that even if the nationalised bank is a corporation, the Chairman of the said bank is not in the service or pay of the bank and further (in the facts of the case) it could not be said that the Chairman was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Sachar, J. did not consider it necessary to deal with the question, as to whether the nationalised bank is a corporation because he was of the view that Section 197 Cr. P.C. was not at- tracted. For the reasons mentioned earlier, the judgment of Jian, J. insofar as it draws a distinction between a 'body corporate' and a 'corporation' and laws down that the natio- nalised bank, though a 'body corporate' is not a corpora- tion, cannot be upheld. The other reason given by Jain, J.
is that the nationalised bank is merely a personified insti- tution having no members and is, therefore, not a corpora- tion. This view also cannot be sustained. We have already pointed out that in order to constitute a corporation it is not necessary that there should be shareholders or members and that in the new pattern of public corporation that has developed there are no shareholders or members.
Keeping in view the provisions of the Banks Nationalisa- tion Act we are of the opinion that the nationalised bank is a corporation established by a Central Act and it is owned and controlled by the 672 Central Government. The premises belonging to a nationalised bank are public premises under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Shri Yogeshwar Prasad that premises belonging to a nationalised bank do not fall within the ambit of the definition of 'public premises' contained in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act.
Shri Yogeshwer Prasad has also urged that 'public prem- ises' as defined in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, must be confined to premises let out for residential pur- poses only and should not cover premises let out for commer- cial purposes and that if premises let out for commercial purposes are included, Section 2(e) would be rendered uncon- stitutional as being violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 read with Articles 39 and 41 of the Constitution. The submission of Shri Yogeshwer Prasad is that a construction which would sustain the constitutionali- ty of the provisions of Section 2(e) should be preferred over a construction which would render them constitutional.
We find no force in this contention.
There is no warrant for confining the scope of the definition of 'public premises' contained in Section 2(e) to premises used for residential purposes only and to excluded premises used for commercial purposes from its ambit. In Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer, (Supra) a similar contention was advanced and it was argued that the expres- sion 'premises' in Public Premises Act would not apply to agricultural land. This Court rejected that contention with the observation:
"The word 'premises' is defined to mean any land. Any land will include agricultural land. There is nothing in the Act to exclude the applicability of the Act to agricultural land." We are also unable to hold that the inclusion of prem- ises used for commercial purposes within the ambit of the definition of 'public premises', would render the Public Premises Act as violative.of the right to equality guaran- teed under Article 14 of the Constitution or right to free- dom to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is difficult to appreciate how a person in unauthorised occupation of public premises used for commercial purposes, can invoke the Directive Principles under Article 39 and 41 of the Constitution. As indicated in the 673 statement of Objects and Reasons the Public Premises Act has been enacted to provide for a speedy machinery for the eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises. It serves a public purpose, viz. making available, for use, public premises after eviction of persons in authorised occupation. The need to provide speedy machinery for evic- tion of persons in unauthorised occupation cannot be con- fined to premises used for residential purposes. There is no reason to assume that such a need will not be there in respect of premises used for commercial purposes. No dis- tinction can, therefore, be made between premises used for residential purposes and premises used for commercial pur- poses in the matter of eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises and the considerations which necessitate providing a speedy machinery for eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises apply equally to both the types of public premises. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Shri Yogeshwer Prasad that the definition of public premises contained in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act should be so construed as to exclude premises used for commercial purposes from its ambit.
Shri A.K. Ganguli, has urged that a person who was put in occupation of the premises as a tenant and who was con- tinued in such occupation after the expiry or the termina- tion of his tenancy cannot be regarded as a person in unau- thorised occupation under Section 2(g) of the Public Prem- ises Act. The submission of Shri Ganguli is that, the occu- pation of a person who was put in possession as a tenant is juridical possession and such an occupation cannot be re- garded as unauthorised occupation. In support of this sub- mission, Shri Ganguli has placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Brigadier K.K. Verma & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., A.I.R. 1954 Bombay 358 which has been approved by this Court in Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jag- dish Singh & Ors., [1968] 2 S.C.R. 203.
The definition of the expression 'unauthorised occupa- tion' contained in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act is in two parts. In the first part the said expression has been defined to mean the occupation by any person of the Public premises without authority for such occupation. It implies occupation by a person who has entered into occupa- tion of any public premises without lawful authority as well as occupation which was permissive at the inception but has ceased to be so. The second part of the definition is inclu- sive in nature and it expressly covers continuance in occu- pation by any person of the public premises after the au- thority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of trans- fer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has 674 expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.
This part covers a case where a person had entered into occupation legally under valid authority but who continues in occupation after the authority under which he was put in occupation has expired or has been determined. The words "whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer" in this part of the definition are wide in amplitude and would cover a lease because lease is a mode of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. The definition of unauthorised occupation contained in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act would, therefore, cover a case where a person has en- tered into occupation of the public premises legally as a tenant under a lease but whose tenancy has expired or has been determined in accordance with law.
Brigadier K.K. Verma & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
(Supra) was decided under the provisions of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, which did not contain the definition of the expression 'unauthorised occupation'. In that case it has been held that under the Indian law, the possession of a tenant who has ceased to be a tenant is protected by law and although he may not have the right to continue in possession, after the termination of the tenan- cy, his possession is juridical and that possession is protected by statute, and therefore, an erstwhile tenant can never become a trespasser and his possession cannot be regarded as unauthorised occupation. The learned Judges have also observed that unless the legislature had given indica- tion of a clear intention that by the expression 'unautho- rised occupation' it meant not only person who had no title at all but also persons who are titled at the inception and whose title came to an end, it would not be proper to give an interpretation to the expression 'unauthorised occupa- tion' which would run counter to the principles of law which have been accepted in this country. After this decision the legislature intervened and introduced the definition of the expression 'unauthorised occupation' in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, which defi- nition has been reproduced in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act and in the said definition the legislature has taken care to make an express provision indicating that the expression 'unauthorised occupation' includes the continu- ance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. In the circumstances the petitioners cannot derive any assistance from the decision of the Bombay High Court in Brigadier K.K. Verma's case (supra).
675 Shri Ganguli has placed relian
