9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959. 2. Whether the Act discriminates between occupants of public premises and those of private property. 3. Whether the Act infringes the right to property. 4. Whether the procedure laid down in Section 5 of the Act infringes rules of natural justice. 5. Validity of the notice under Section 4 of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959: The appellants challenged the validity of the Act, arguing that it discriminated between occupants of public premises and those of private property, thereby infringing their right to equality before the law and equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the Act substituted the remedy of the Government of eviction as a landlord under the ordinary law, implying that the Government could only resort to the remedy under the Act and not by way of a suit for eviction. The High Court concluded that there was a valid classification between the occupiers of public premises and those of private property, and that the Act was substitutive and not supplemental, thus negating the discrimination claim. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Act did not impliedly repeal the Government's right to sue for eviction under the ordinary law and that the Act provided an additional remedy. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its conclusion about implied repeal. 2. Whether the Act discriminates between occupants of public premises and those of private property: The appellants contended that the Act discriminated between occupants of public premises and those of private property and also among the former inter se. The High Court found that the Act provided a speedier remedy for eviction from public premises, which was justified due to the public interest in keeping such properties free from encroachment. The Supreme Court agreed that the classification between public and private premises was based on an intelligible differentia and had a rational relation to the object of the Act. However, the Supreme Court found that Section 5 of the Act allowed for discrimination among occupants of public premises inter se, as it conferred unguided discretion to the Collector to choose between two remedies, thus violating Article 14. Consequently, Section 5 was declared void. 3. Whether the Act infringes the right to property: The appellants argued that the Act infringed their right to property. The High Court rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court did not address this issue in detail as the appellants abandoned the attack based on Article 19(1)(f). The Supreme Court noted that being unauthorized occupants, the appellants had no right to property in the premises. 4. Whether the procedure laid down in Section 5 of the Act infringes rules of natural justice: The appellants contended that the procedure in Section 5 of the Act infringed rules of natural justice. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the procedure provided a reasonable opportunity for the occupant to be heard. The Supreme Court, however, found that Section 5 conferred unguided discretion to the Collector, which could lead to arbitrary decisions, thus violating the right to equality under Article 14. Therefore, Section 5 was declared void. 5. Validity of the notice under Section 4 of the Act: The appellants argued that the notice under Section 4 was invalid as it did not give ten clear days as required by Section 4(2)(b) of the Act. The High Court rejected this contention, and the Supreme Court did not specifically address this issue in its judgment. Separate Judgments: - The majority opinion delivered by Shelat, J., with Subba Rao, C.J., Shelat, and Vaidialingam, JJ., agreeing, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and declared Section 5 of the Act void. - The dissenting opinion by Bachawat, J., with Hidayatullah, J., agreeing, upheld the validity of the Act, including Section 5, and would have dismissed the appeal with costs. Bachawat, J., argued that the Act provided a summary procedure for eviction in the public interest and did not violate Article 14. Conclusion: The Supreme Court, by majority opinion, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and declared Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, void for violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The writ petition filed by the appellants was made absolute with costs.
|
