1973 (11) TMI 102 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the application of the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952.
2. Legitimacy of the requisition of the premises under the Defence of India Rules.
3. Right of the Government to recover arrears of rent or damages under the Act.
4. Whether the premises in question were "Government premises" under the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the application of the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952:
The High Court held that the Act could not be applied to cases where the letting had been done prior to the passing of the Act. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Act's purpose is to provide a summary procedure for the recovery of rent and eviction from government premises. The Act applies to arrears of rent and damages for unauthorized occupation of government premises, regardless of when the letting or unauthorized occupation commenced. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Act's provisions, including Sections 4, 6, and 12, are applicable as long as the premises are "Government premises" and the arrears of rent or damages are within the limitation period.

2. Legitimacy of the requisition of the premises under the Defence of India Rules:
The Supreme Court noted that no valid requisition order under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules was produced. The District Magistrate's purported requisition under Rule 81(2)(bb) was also invalid as the power of requisition under Rule 75A was not delegated to him. Therefore, the premises could not be considered requisitioned property or "Government premises" under Section 2(c) of the Act.

3. Right of the Government to recover arrears of rent or damages under the Act:
The Supreme Court clarified that the Act allows the Government to recover arrears of rent and damages for unauthorized occupation through a summary procedure. Sections 4 and 6 provide for the recovery of arrears of rent, while Section 12 deals with the recovery of damages for unauthorized occupation. The liability to pay arrears of rent or damages must be outstanding and within the limitation period. The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's view that the Act does not apply to cases where the letting occurred before the Act's commencement, as this would defeat the Act's purpose.

4. Whether the premises in question were "Government premises" under the Act:
The Supreme Court found that the premises were not "Government premises" as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act because no valid requisition order was produced. Consequently, the Act did not apply, and the defendants could not recover the claimed amount as arrears of Land Revenue under the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the premises were not "Government premises" under the Act and that the Act did not apply. The defendants were not entitled to recover the amount claimed as arrears of Land Revenue. The decree of the High Court was upheld, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.