2011 (5) TMI 903 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the provisions of Sections 106 and 107 of Transfer of Property Act could not be applied to the present case on that count since the premises were covered under a special act which will prevail as against a general enactment?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the eviction notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
2. Jurisdiction of the Estate Officer to pass the eviction order.
3. Applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
4. Status of the respondent's occupancy post lease expiry.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Eviction Notice:
The appellants issued a seven-day notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, 1971, on 14.3.1984 and again on 27.3.1984. The respondent challenged this notice in a Civil Suit, which was dismissed, and the respondent was given six months to vacate the premises. The respondent did not vacate, leading to a fresh eviction order under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act on 26.6.1991. The Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court found the seven-day notice invalid, holding that a 15-day notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was required. However, the Supreme Court held that the Public Premises Act, being a special Act, overrides the general provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, thus validating the seven-day notice.

2. Jurisdiction of the Estate Officer:
The respondent contended that the Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction as the Cantonment Boards were included under the Public Premises Act only from 1.6.1994. The Supreme Court noted that the premises belonged to the Union of India, managed by the Cantonment Board under Section 116A of the Cantonment Act, 1924, and thus fell within the definition of "public premises" under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act. The Estate Officer's jurisdiction was upheld as the premises were always covered under the Public Premises Act due to their ownership by the Union of India.

3. Applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
The High Court applied the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and ruled that the lease was from month to month, requiring a 15-day notice for termination. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Public Premises Act, a special legislation, prevails over the Transfer of Property Act. The lease had expired, and the respondent was in unauthorized occupation under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act, making the seven-day notice sufficient.

4. Status of the Respondent's Occupancy Post Lease Expiry:
The lease expired on 31.3.1984, and the respondent's continued occupation was unauthorized. The Estate Officer's eviction order was justified as the respondent failed to vacate despite the lease's expiry and subsequent notices. The Supreme Court confirmed that the respondent was in unauthorized occupation, and the eviction process followed was appropriate under the Public Premises Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Division Bench and Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court. The eviction order by the Estate Officer dated 26.6.1991, as upheld by the District Judge, was confirmed. The Public Premises Act's provisions were deemed applicable, and the seven-day notice was valid. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.