1980 (8) TMI 207 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was an "unauthorized occupant" under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
2. Whether the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 overrides the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
3. Whether the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 overrides the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

Summary:

Issue 1: Unauthorized Occupant
The appellant argued that the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (Premises Act) did not apply as he was not an "unauthorized occupant" since he entered the premises lawfully before they were purchased by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The Supreme Court held that the definition of "unauthorized occupation" u/s 2(2)(g) of the Premises Act includes continued occupation after the authority has expired or been determined. The appellant's lease was determined by a valid notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, making him an unauthorized occupant under the Premises Act.

Issue 2: Conflict with Delhi Rent Control Act
The appellant contended that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Rent Act) overrides the Premises Act, as the Rent Act provides special protection to tenants. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Premises Act, enacted in 1971, prevails over the Rent Act due to its later enactment and specific application to public premises. The Court emphasized that the Premises Act's objective is to provide a summary procedure for eviction from public premises, which is distinct from the broader scope of the Rent Act.

Issue 3: Conflict with Slum Areas Act
The appellant argued that s. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (Slums Act) overrides both the Rent Act and the Premises Act. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that the Premises Act, being subsequent and more specific, prevails over the Slums Act. The Court highlighted that the Premises Act provides a specific forum for evicting unauthorized occupants, which must be given precedence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court overruled all the preliminary objections raised by the appellant. The appellant was found to be in unauthorized occupation under the Premises Act. The Premises Act was held to override both the Rent Act and the Slums Act due to its specific and subsequent nature. The appeal was dismissed, with the appellant agreeing to vacate the premises by August 1, 1982, upon filing an undertaking.