1990 (8) TMI 393 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Public Premises Act) versus the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Rent Control Act).
2. Definition and scope of "public premises" and "unauthorised occupation" under the Public Premises Act.
3. Legislative competence and conflict resolution between the Public Premises Act and the Rent Control Act.
4. Specific applicability of the Public Premises Act to nationalised banks and other entities.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Public Premises Act vs. Rent Control Act:
The Supreme Court considered whether a tenant whose tenancy has expired or been terminated can be evicted under the Public Premises Act and whether such a tenant can invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act. The Court concluded that the provisions of the Public Premises Act override the provisions of the Rent Control Act for premises falling within the ambit of both enactments.

2. Definition and Scope of "Public Premises" and "Unauthorised Occupation":
The Court examined the definitions in Section 2 of the Public Premises Act. It held that premises belonging to nationalised banks are "public premises" u/s 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act, as these banks are corporations established by a Central Act and owned by the Central Government. The term "unauthorised occupation" u/s 2(g) includes the continued occupation of premises after the expiry or termination of the tenancy.

3. Legislative Competence and Conflict Resolution:
The Court held that both the Public Premises Act and the Rent Control Act are enacted by Parliament under the Concurrent List. It applied the principle that later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws, concluding that the Public Premises Act, being a later special enactment, prevails over the Rent Control Act. The Court also noted that the Public Premises Act is intended to provide a speedy machinery for eviction from public premises, which serves a public purpose.

4. Specific Applicability to Nationalised Banks and Other Entities:
The Court rejected the argument that the Public Premises Act should be confined to premises let out for residential purposes only. It clarified that the Act applies to all premises, including those used for commercial purposes. The Court also dismissed the contention that the Act does not apply to tenants who were initially in lawful occupation, emphasizing that the definition of "unauthorised occupation" covers such situations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petition, holding that the Public Premises Act overrides the Rent Control Act in cases involving public premises. The appellants were directed to hand over possession of the premises to the respondent banks within one month. The interim orders staying eviction were vacated.