1988 (7) TMI 406 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is ultra vires the legislative power of Parliament.
2. Whether the premises in question fall under the definition of "public premises."
3. Whether the 1971 Act prevails over State legislation under Article 254 of the Constitution.
4. Whether the appointment of an Estate Officer from the respondent bank violates Article 14.

Summary:

1. Legislative Competence of Parliament:
The primary issue was whether the impugned Act, which provides for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises, is ultra vires the legislative power of Parliament. The Court held that the 1971 Act is intra vires Parliament. The judgment emphasized that the subject matter of housing accommodation and control thereof falls within the purview of the Concurrent List, as reaffirmed in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal, [1980] 1 SCR 334. The Court preferred the view of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in L.S. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., AIR 1980 MP 106 over the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 458/79 Elliot Waud Hill (P) Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation.

2. Definition of Public Premises:
There was no dispute regarding whether the premises in question are public premises. The premises belong to the United Commercial Bank, a statutory corporation constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and thus fall under the definition of "public premises" u/s 2(e) of the 1971 Act.

3. Prevalence of 1971 Act over State Legislation:
The Court held that the provisions of the 1971 Act prevail over the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962, under Article 254 of the Constitution. The 1971 Act, being a later Act and a special Act, prevails against the State Acts. The Court referred to Jain Ink Manufacturing Co. v. LIC, [1981] 1 SCR 498, which held that the 1971 Act would prevail over the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956, and the Delhi Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956.

4. Appointment of Estate Officer:
The contention that the appointment of an Estate Officer from the respondent bank violates Article 14 was dismissed. The Court found no substance in the argument that personal bias could be attributed to such an officer merely because he is an officer of the bank. The Act provides for an appeal to an independent judicial officer, ensuring fairness and impartiality.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court made no order as to costs. The judgment clarified that the 1971 Act is intra vires Parliament, the premises in question are public premises, and the provisions of the 1971 Act prevail over the State Acts under Article 254 of the Constitution. The appointment of an Estate Officer from the respondent bank does not violate Article 14.