# ASHOKA MARKETING LID. AND ANR. ETC: ETC v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1990] 3 S.C.R. 649
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1990-08-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 1986
- **Bench:** Sabyasachi Mukharji, B.C. Ray, M.H. Kania, K.N. Saikia, S.C. Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ashoka-marketing-lid-and-anr-etc-etc-v-punjab-national-bank-and-ors-etc-etc-10776
- **Pages:** 48

## Headnote

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14, 22, 50 and 54-
~~Tenant of 'Public Premises'-Tenancy terminated or expires under
-1
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971Whether entitled to invoke the statutory protection of Rent Control Act,
1958.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
197 I: Sections 2(e), 4(i) and 7(3)-'Public Premises'-Whether includes
premises belonging to Nationalised banks-Tenant in such premisesTenancy expires or is terminated-Whether can invoke pro:~ction of
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
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
::j
P.ublic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Writ
petitions under Article 226 were f"ded by the appeUants 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 /iii, (58 Cat. W.N. 1066); Satish Chander
& Anr. v. Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1958 Punjab l; Brigade
Commander, Meerut Sub Area v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1956 AU. 507;
P.L. Mehar etc. v. D.R. Khanna, etc., AIR 1971Deihl1 and Northern
~ India Caterers Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Anr., [1967] 3 SCR
399.
649
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 3 S.C.R.
A
This led to the enactment of the Public Premises Act in 1971. The i._validity of this act was upheld by this Court in Hari Singh v. The
Military Estate Officer, [1973] I SCR SIS.
B
c
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 provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
\In regard to the applicability of the Public Permises 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 deimition 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, 19S6 and it was also not a· corporation established by or under a Central Act. On the other hand, it was
contended that the respondents being nationalised bank, was a corporaD lion 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)(1i) 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
E general, and also invoked the not obstante clause contained in the enactment relied upon. In this connection, it was argued on behalf of the
respndents that the Public Premises Act having been enacted by Parliament 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
F
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: (I) The provisions of the Public Premises Act, to the
G extent they cover premises falling within the ambit of the Rent Control

## Text

_Characters 0–38,916 of 120,341. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38916 for what follows._

.,.
ASHOKA MARKETING LID. AND ANR. ETC: ETC.
v.
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
AUGUST 7, 1990
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ., B.C. RAY, M.H. KANIA,
K.N. SAIKIA AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14, 22, 50 and 54-
~~Tenant of 'Public Premises'-Tenancy terminated or expires under
-1
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971Whether entitled to invoke the statutory protection of Rent Control Act,
1958.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
197 I: Sections 2(e), 4(i) and 7(3)-'Public Premises'-Whether includes
premises belonging to Nationalised banks-Tenant in such premisesTenancy expires or is terminated-Whether can invoke pro:~ction of
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
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
::j
P.ublic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Writ
petitions under Article 226 were f"ded by the appeUants 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 /iii, (58 Cat. W.N. 1066); Satish Chander
& Anr. v. Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1958 Punjab l; Brigade
Commander, Meerut Sub Area v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1956 AU. 507;
P.L. Mehar etc. v. D.R. Khanna, etc., AIR 1971Deihl1 and Northern
~ India Caterers Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Anr., [1967] 3 SCR
399.
649
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 3 S.C.R.
A
This led to the enactment of the Public Premises Act in 1971. The i._validity of this act was upheld by this Court in Hari Singh v. The
Military Estate Officer, [1973] I SCR SIS.
B
c
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 provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
\In regard to the applicability of the Public Permises 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 deimition 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, 19S6 and it was also not a· corporation established by or under a Central Act. On the other hand, it was
contended that the respondents being nationalised bank, was a corporaD lion 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)(1i) 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
E general, and also invoked the not obstante clause contained in the enactment relied upon. In this connection, it was argued on behalf of the
respndents that the Public Premises Act having been enacted by Parliament 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
F
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: (I) The provisions of the Public Premises Act, to the
G extent they cover premises falling within the ambit of the Rent Control
Act, override the provisions of the Rent Control Act, and a person in
unauthorised OCCUJlalion of public premises under Section 2( e) of the Act
cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act. [6940-E)
(2) After the second world war there has been development of a
H
new pattern of public corporation in England as an Instrument of plan-
-
-,....)-.
-I
-----
~
:(
ASHOKA MARKETING v. P.N.B.
651
ning in the mixed economy. The general characteristii:s 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 bas the legal status of a corporate
body wtb independent legal personality. There has been a simialr
growth of this type of public corporation in other countries. This trend
•
is also ev_ident in our country since lndej>endenc;e and a n1lJDber of such
public corporations have been constituted by Acts of Parliament. l668A-C]
(3) The expression 'corporation' in Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of tbe
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. [ 670G l
S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, [1981] 3 SCR864,
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 bas developed there are no shareholders or
members. [67JGJ
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 Authority,
[1985] 55 Company Cases 81, overruled.
( 5) Provisions of the Banks Nationalisation Act show that the
nationalised Bank has been constituted as a distinct juristic person by
the Act and it is owned by the Central Government. They further
indicate that the nationalised bank has all the attributes of the new
pattern of public corporation. l667B]
(6) The object of the legislation in enlarging the defmltion 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 Coml'anies, Corporation and statutory
bodies in which the Central Government has a substantial interest. [670D-Ej
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R.
(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-op capital is held by the Central Government, are to be treated as public enterprises. It could not be the inten·
lion of Parliament that premises beloning 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 nanks Nationalisation
Act the nationalised bank is a corporation established by a Central Act
and it is owned and controlled by the Central Government. The
premises belonging to a nationalised bank are public premises under
Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act. [67 IH; 672AI
(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
o purposesfromitsambit. [672D]
Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer, [1973] l SCR 515, referred
to.
(10) No distinction can be made between premises used for resiE dential purposes and premises nsed for commercial purposes in the
matter of eviction of nnauthorised occupants of public premises and the
consideration which necessitate providing a speedy machinery for evic·
lion of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises apply
equally to both the types of public premises. I 6738-C]
F
(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
G been determined for any reason whatsoever. The words "whether by
way of grant or any other mode of transfer" in this part of the defmition are wide in amplitude and would cover a lease because lease is a
mode of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. [673F; G-H; 67 48]
Brigadier K.K. Venna v. Union of India, AIR 1954 8om 358,
H distinguished.
ASHOKA MARKETING v. 1'.N.B.
653
~___.i.-
Lallu Yeshwant Singh v .. Rao J agdish Singh.& ·Ors., [ 1968] ·2 SCR
A
203, .and Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors., [1985] Suppl .. 3 SCR 302, referred to.
( 12) It is tnie 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
IB
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 finnl order that is passed is by a judicial officer. (675F-H]
Magan/al Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., [1975] l SCR 1, referred to.
(13) As regards rent control legislations enacted by the State
legislatures, the position is well settled that such legislation .fall within
c
the ambit of entries 6, 7 and 13 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the
D
Constitution. [682E]
Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama !)undari 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 Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. &Anr.
E
v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 4SCC 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
F
of the territory of India not included in a State notwithstanding that
such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List. \ 682G J
( 15) The Public Premises Act deals with Government property as
well as property belonging to other legal eotities mentioned in clauses
(2) and (3) of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act. In so far as it
G
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 fall 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 canoot be regarded as propertY of
H
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1990] 3 S.C.R.
A
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 enacled in exercising the legislative power in respect of matters enumerated
in the concurrent list. [682H; 683A-C]
B
(16) Both the statutes, viz. the Public Premises Act and the Rent
Control Act, have been enacted by the same legislature, Parliament, in
exercise of the legislative powers in respect of the matters enumerated
in the Concurrent List. [ 684C I
c
Accountant and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
And Ors., (1988] 4 SCC 324; Smt. Saiyada Mossarrat v. Hindustan
Steel Ltd., (1989] I 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
D
law regulating the relationship of landlord and tenant contained in the
Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as it makes provision for determinalion of standard rent, it specifies the grounds on which a landlord can
seek the eviction of a tenant, it prescribes the forum for adjudication of
disputes between landlords and ten1111ts and the procedure which has to
be followed in such proceedings. The Rent Control Act can, therefore,
E
be said to be a special statute regulating the relationship of landlord and
tenarit 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. [689EJ
F
Jain Ink Manufacturing Company v. Life Insurance Corporation
of India &Anr., [1981] I SCR 498, referred to.
( 19) Both the enactments, namely, the Rent Control Act and the
Public Premises Act, are special statutes in relation.to the matters dealt
with therein. Therefore, the exception contained in the principle that a
G
subsequent general law cannot derogate from an earlier special law
cannot )le 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; 687 A]
J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of
H
Uttar Pradesh, [1961] 3 SCR 185; U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari
:..___-
.,
~·
)'
-
'-.
,,
~
r
ASHOKA MARKETING v. P.N.B.
655
Shankar Jain, [1979] 1SCR3.55 and Life Insurance Corporation v. D.J.
-._,,i._Bahadur, [1981] 1SCR1083, referred to.
(20) In the tase 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]
-tShri 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 he construed as overriding the
provisfons contained in the Rent Control Act. [690H]
122) 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 en11cted the Public Premises Act
containing a specific provision in Section 15 barring jurisdiction of all
A
B
c
D
Jt
courts (which would include the Rent Controller under the Rent Control Act). This indicates that Parliament intended that the provisions of
E
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-BI
(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
F
he induced to earn profits by purchasing property in possession of
tenants at a low price and after buying such property evict the tenants
after terminating 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
G
guided by the public interest. [693F; E-GJ
~
Mis 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.
H
A
656
SUPREME COURT rulPORTS
[1990] 3 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.1986 of the Delhi High
Court in CW No. U95 of 1986.
K.K. Venugopal, A.K. Ganguli, Yogeshwar Prasad, P.R. Seetharaman, S.K. Gupta and A.K.Srivastava for the Appellants.
P
Soli .I. Sorabjee, Attorney Ge~eral. Kapil Sibbal. Addition2J
Solicitor General. G.L. Sangbi, S. Ganesh, Mrs. Susbma Suri. EMS
Anam, Atul Nanwa. Aman Vad1her. S.K._Mehta, Kailash Vasdev and
S.R. Srivastava for the Respondents.
-,.-
c
D
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. The common question which arises fo1 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 beeen terminated, can be evicted
from the said premises as being a person in unauthorised-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 question 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 Parliament Street, New
F
Delhi. The said building originally belonged to Pun jab National Bank
Ltd., a banking company. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (Appellate No. 1 in
Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 1986) and Mis 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 (Acquisition and Transfer of
G
Undertakings) Act, 1970 (herei11after referred to as the 'Banks
Nationalisation Act'), the undertaking 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
H
Property Act, the tenancies of both the appellants were terminated by
~-.
..,-··
--\
·~ >
ASHOKA MARKETING v. P.N.B. [AGRAWAL, J.[
657
Punjab National Bank, with effect from, November, 39, 1971. Thereafter, the said Bank initiated proceedings under the Rent Control Act
against both the appellants. in those proeeedings 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 proceecfings, under the
Public Premises Act, the Estate Officer passed orders for eviction
again.st 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 petitions 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 apl'ellant 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 initiated 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 226of
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 Special 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 ColeA
B
c
D
E
F
G
man & Co. Ltd., (petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition) was in occupation of a part of the said property as a tenant under Mis Bharat
H
A
B
c
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 3 S.C.R.
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 Corporation 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
D
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 enactments.
The first enactments was the Government Premises (Eviction) Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1950 Act') which was enacted by
E
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
building) 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 premises after issuing a
F
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
G
v. M. Shaukat Ali, 58 Cal. WN 1066) and by the Punjab High Court (in
Satish Chander & Anr. v. Delhi Improvement Trust, Etc., AIR 1958
Punjab 1) on the ground that it imposed unreasonable restriction on
the right 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.
H
Ganga Prasad, AIR 1956 All. 507) on the ground that it was violative
-
ASHOKA MARKETING v. P.N.B. [AGRAWAL, J.]
659
-.__.,I. of the rights to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the
A
Constitution.
Thereupon Parliament enacted the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
1958 Act'). In the 1958 Act, the definition 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 am! 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 Limitedv. 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 yoid 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 a11d
to pick and choose some of those in occupation 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 decision of this Court
in Northern India Caterers Private Limited's case (supra); Parliament
eancted Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Amendment Act, 1968 whereby the 1958 Act was amended and Section lOE was introduced 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 1971Delhi1) 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.
B
c
D
E
F
G
This led to the enactment of the Public Premises Act by Parliament in 1971. It was brought into effect from 16th September, 1958,
H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R.
the date on which the 1958 Act came into force. The provisions of the
A
Public Premises Act are similar to those contained in the 1958 Act.
B
c
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 company, 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
penalities (Section 11), liability of heirs and representatives (Section
13) recovery of rent etc. as an arrear of land revenue (Section 14) and
bar of jurisdiction of Courtc (Section lS). The validity of the Public
Premises Act was upheld by this Court in Hari Singh & Ors. v. The
Military Estate Officer &Anr., [1973] l SCR SlS.
D
The Public Premises Act was amended in 1980 by the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment 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 InstiE
tute 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 Comnames Act, 19S6 in which not less
than fifty one· per cent of the pa1a-up capital is held by the Central
F
Government. By the said Amending Act of 1980, the total period
taken in eviction proceedings was also sought to be curtailed 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
G
1980 provisions were also made, by inserting Sections 5A, SB and SC,
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 premises. The Public Premises Act
was further amended in 1984 by the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1984 whereby ceitai:>
H
further amendments were made to provide for increased penalties ana ~
ASHOKA MARKETING v, .P.N.B. (AGnAV'-.\L, J.]
f!61
making the offences under the Act cognisabte and to enable th.e Es tat~
~__,.(.Officers to exercise their powers under the. Act effectively.
}\
'
-\
>--
As stated in the preamble, the Public Premises Adi 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 defined. 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 requisitioned 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) Amendment 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;
B
c
D
E
(2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on
F'
behalfof,-
(i) any company as defined in $ection 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
G
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,
H
662
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1990] 3 S.C.R.
(iii) any University established or incorporated by any
Centrnl Act,
:......._ ~
(iv) any Institute incorporated by the Institutes of Technology 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 Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31of1966)
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) m 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
Authority, 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 tne 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 Government of
gazetted officer of Government or officers of equal rank of the staG
wtory authority as Estate Officers. Section 4 relates to issue of show
cause against order of eviction and provides as under:
H
"(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
ASHOKA MARKETING v. P.N.B. [AGRAWAL, l.]
663
- _,.{.__
upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of A
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
.._.,-
(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 c
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
specified in the notice alongwith the evidence which they
D
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 conspicuous part of the public premises and in such other
E'
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
- a
believe that any persons are in occupation of the public
~··
premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of subF
section (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 maner as may be
prescribed."
Section 5 relates to eviction of unauthorised occupants and provides as
G
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 subH
-
A
B
c
D
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R.
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 affixed 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 (lJ 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 necessary."
Section 5A provides for removal of unauthorised constructions/structures or fixtures, cattle or other animal from public premises. Section
5B deals with demolition of unauthorised constructions. Section SC
empowers the Estate Officer to seal unauthorised constructions. SecE
tion 6 provides for disposal of property left on public premises by
unauthorised occupants. Section 7 empowers the Estate Officer 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
F
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 H.im 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 Officer in respect of any public premises
G
passed under Sections 5, 5B, SC 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 officer as
H
expeditiously as possible. Sections 10 attaches finality to the orders
. "'- -
-
·'"'·
-
ASHOKA MARKETING v. P.N.B. !AGRAWAL, J.I
665
~ _;k. made by an Estate Officer or appellate officer and provides that the
-
~aid orders shall not be called in qustions in any original snit 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 J 1
provides for offences and penalties and Section 1 lA lays cl.own tnat
the offences under Section 11 would be treated as cognizable offences
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.