THE PUBLIC PREMISES

(Eviction of unauthorized occupants)

ACT, 1971

INTRODUCTION
• Central Govt. provides residential to
accommodation
its
employees,
Members of Parliament
• Allotted to them while they are in
service/ till the term of their office
• Provides temporary occupation of
guest hostels, holiday homes, tourist
accommodation etc..

• After retirement/ expiry of the term is to
be vacated and surrendered to the Govt.
• This facility as being misused by them
either not vacating /over staying in the
residential
accommodation
&
not
surrendering it to the Govt.
• To evict such unauthorized occupants the
only course open was to file civil suits
which was quite dilatory

Act extends to whole of India .this Act was introduced • Aim of this Act is to evict the unauthorized occupants from public premises • Central Govt.• To expedite eviction of such unauthorized occupants ………….

• This led to the enactment of the public premises Act. 1958 which was declared unconstitutional by different Highcourts.1950 + Public Premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act. Premises (Eviction) Act.• This Act came in to existence in the year 1958 • The public premises Act 1971 preceded by two enactments – Govt. .1971.

corporations and statutory bodies in which the Central Govt. has a substantial interest • Public premises includes both residential and commercial purpose • Procedure – Summary procedure .2(e) of the Act • Evicting unauthorized occupants not only from the premises belonging to Central Govt. but also from premises of companies.• Object of Legislation in enlarging the definition of public premises in Sec.

means any land or any building or part of a building and includes• (i) the garden. and • Any fittings a fixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof {S.2©} . if any appertaining to such building or part of a building.DEFINITIONS • “Premises” :. grounds and out houses.

1980. . or taken on lease or requisitioned by. or on behalf of. • whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction or Unauthorized Occupants) Amendments Act. and includes any such premises which have been placed by that Government. under the control of the Secretariat of either House of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that Secretariat. the Central Government.“public premises" means• (1) any premises belonging to.

• (2) any premises belonging to. in which not less than fifty-one per cent. 1956 or a local . • (ii) any corporation (not being a company as company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act. 1956. of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government or any company which is a subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act ) of the first-mentioned company. or on behalf of. or taken on lease by.• (i) any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act.

• authority) established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government. 1961. . • (v) any Board of Trustees constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act. 1963. • (iv) any Instituted incorporated by the Institutes of Technology Act. • (iii) any University established or incorporated by any Central Act.

• (vi) the Bhakra Management Board constituted under section 79 of the Punjab Reorganization Act. • (viii) any Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act.Beas Management Board under sub-section (6) of section 80 of that Act • (vii) any State Government or the Government of any Union Territory situated in the National Capital Territory of Delhi or in any other Union Territory. 1924 (2 of 1924). and . 1966 and that Board as and when re-named as the Bhakra.

• (ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Authority.• (i) any premises belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. or any municipal committee or notified area committee. whether such premises are in the possession of. or taken on lease or requisitioned by.• (3) in relation to the [National Capital Territory of Delhi]. or on behalf of any State Government or the Government of any Union Territory . or leased out by. the said Authority. • (iii) any premises belonging to.

• "temporary occupation ". the Government of a Union Territory or a Statutory Authority for a total period (including the extended period. means occupation by any person on the basis of an order of allotment made under the authority of the Central Government. in relation to any public premises. if any) which is less than thirty days{s. a State Government.2(fb)} .

• "unauthorized occupation".2(g)} . means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation. and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.{s. in relation to any public premises.

CASE-LAW Whether the Nationalized banks premises comes under the purview of public premises or not? .

Punjab National Bank A I R 1991 S C 855 . case law: Ashoka Marketing Ltd vs.Ref.

• Tenant of public premises.1971whether entitled to invoke the statutory protection of Rent Control Act.Tenancy terminated or expires under Public Premises Act.whether includes premises belonging to Nationalized Banks –Tenant in such premises.1958? • Public Premises.tenancy expires or is terminated – whether can invoke protection of Delhi Rent Control Act .

resultdismissed • Appeal by writ petitioners….petitioners.u/A.• Facts of the case: • Appellants.226by Appellants-….challenging the order of eviction.32 Supreme Court .1971 • Writ pet.tenants -in the premises belongs to the Res/banks • Their tenancy had expired/ had been terminated by the respondents • Eviction proceedings initiated against them u/ P P Act. u/A.

from public premises • The scope and object of this Act quite different from Rent Control Act . parliament.. • This Act is also special statute relating to eviction of ………. in exercise of the legislative powers in respect of the matters enumerated at the concurrent list.• Supreme Court‟s verdict: • Public premises Act & Rent control Act have been enacted by the same legislature.

particular set of juristic persons like companies/ corporations/ central Govt.C Act is much wider application – it applies to all private premises • Object.• This PP Act –operates in a very limited field – applies only to a limited nature of premises belonging only to a particular sets of individuals. • R. .afford special protection to all the tenants except sec.2 of public premises Act.

2(e) of Act.• Supreme Court held that the Nationalized Bank is a corporation established by a Central Act and it is owned and controlled by the central Govt. ( acc to Sec. .2 (e)(ii)) • Both commercial and residential premises are contemplated under the Act • The premises let by the such corporation will be the public premises within the meaning of definition under Sec.

the Nationalized Bank premises comes under the purview of public premises under the Act • In the result the appeals and the writ petition are dismissed. . Occupation by tenant who is holding over such public premises is an unauthorized occupant • Therefore. • The appellants are directed to handover the possession of the portion of the premises in their occupation to the Respondent Bank within one month.

being Gazetted Officers / officers of equivalent Z1 Statutory Authority .• Who is competent authority to follow the procedure laid down in Act? Estate Officer • Sec.3 authorizes the appointment of an „Estate Officer‟ • By way of official notification gazette – appoint such persons.

exercises his powers within his local limits • In case of appointment of Estate Officer belongs to the officer of secretariat of Rajya Sabha & Lok Sabha shall be appointed with the prior permission/consultation of Chairman of Rajya Sabha & Speaker of …. .• .

The notice shall . Issue notice in writing – concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should be made • 2.• Officer of Statutory Authority shall only be appointed as an Estate Officer in respect of the public premises controlled by that authority only.4} • 1. • Procedure: {s.

• (a) specify the grounds on which the order of
eviction is proposed to be made
• (b) require all persons who are in occupation/
claim interest in public premises
• (i) to show cause- against the proposed order –
date specified in the notice – not earlier than
seven days

• (ii) to appear before the Estate Officer –for
personal hearing- along with the evidence which
they intend to produce in support of the cause
shown
• Notice is mandatory & should
particulars of the premises clearly

contain

Case-law

Bhagath singh vs DDA
1988(1) RCR 671 (Delhi)
• In this case court held that the order of eviction
is liable to be set aside if the notice for eviction
did not set out the particulars of the premises
clearly.

• The Estate Officer may make an order of eviction • For reasons to be recorded there in • Directing that the public premises shall be vacated .5: Eviction of unauthorized occupants – after personal hearing – if the Estate Officer is satisfied that public premises are in unauthorized occupation.• S.

• Such date – specified in order • 2.5A} . if any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within specified time – eviction officer take the possession.may use force in case of necessary • Power to remove unauthorized constructions {S.

• No person shall erect/place/raise any building [ in any movable/immovable]. remove or cause to be removed the building or other structure or fixture from the public premises and recover the cost of such removal from the person aforesaid as an arrear of land revenue .. the estate officer may. by order.display any goods – bring/keep any cattle or other animal on or against or in front of any public premises • In case of immovable structures….

by order. as per procedure laid down in S. cattle or other animal. such structure.the estate officer may. from the public premises and recover the cost of such removal from such person as all arrears of land revenue.• In case of movables / cattles…. fixture. remove or cause to be removed without notice. • Order of demolition of unauthorized constructions. as the case may be. goods. 5B .

before or after making an order of demolition under section 5B. to make an order directing the sealing of such erection or work or of the public premises in which such erection or work has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in such manner as may be prescribed.• Power to seal unauthorized construction. for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act.5©)- It shall be lawful for the estate officer. . or for preventing any dispute as to the nature and extent of such erection or work. at any time. (S.

• 2) Where any erection or work or any premises in which any erection or work is being carried on has. the estate officer may. or have been sealed. for the purpose of demolishing such erection or work in accordance with the provisions of this Act. or • (b) Under an order of the appellate officer made in an appeal under this Act . order such seal to be removed. • (3) No person shall remove such seal except• (a) Under an order made by the estate officer under sub-section (2).

5B • the estate officer may. • remove or cause to be removed or dispose of by public auction any property remaining on Such premises.5. after giving fourteen days notice to the persons from whom possession of the public premises has been taken and after publishing the notice in at least one newspaper having circulation in the locality.6] • persons have been evicted from any public premises u/Sec.u/ Sec.• Disposal of property left on public premises by unauthorized occupants [s. • building or other work has been demolished . .

cattle or other animal. • (1B) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and (IA). by public auction. the giving or publication of any notice referred to therein shall not be necessary in respect of any property which is subject to speedy and natural decay. after giving fourteen days notice to the persons owning such goods. after recording such evidence as he may think fit. materials. such goods. the estate officer may.• (1A) Where any goods. cattle or other animal and after publishing the notice in at least one newspaper having circulation in the locality. materials cattle or other animal have been removed from any public premises under Section 5A. and the estate officer may. materials. dispose of. cause such property to be sold or otherwise disposed of in such manner as he may think fit .

be paid to such person or persons as may appear to the estate officer to be entitled to the same: .• (2) Where any property is sold under subsection (1). the sale proceeds thereof shall. due to the Central Government of the on account of arrears of rent or damages or costs. if any. after deducting the expenses of the sale and the amount.

. he may refer such dispute to the civil court of competent jurisdiction and the decision of the court thereon shall be final.• Provided that where the estate officer is unable to decide as to the person or persons to whom the balance of the amount is payable or as to the apportionment of the same.

• (2A)“costs” means • the cost of removal recoverable under Section 5A and • the cost of demolition recoverable under Section 5B. • S.7: Power to require payment of rent / damages in respect of public premises .

require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such installments as may he specified in the order. .• Arrears of rent payable by the unauthorized occupant .require that person to pay the same within such time and in such installments as may be specified in the order. by order.public premises . • assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may.

Goyal & Co 1991 Rajadhani Law Reporter (note)54 .• Whether the Govt. is entitled to claim the damages without proving ownership ? Ref. case-law Union of India vs.S. I.

then it cannot claim damages.• The court held that if the Govt. . fails to prove its ownership of alleged premises from which it has sought eviction of the unauthorized occupant.

for the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Act.P.C. - • An estate officer shall.• S. have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the C. when trying a suit in respect of the following matters . 8: Power of estate officers.

• (b) Requiring the discovery and production of documents.• (a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath. . which may be prescribed. • (c) Any other matter.

9].• Appeals: lies before . .an appellate officer who shall be the district judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years‟ standing as the district judge may designate in this behalf [S.

5 – within 12 days-from the date of publication of order • Order u/s.5c .5B & 7 – within 12 days.within 12 days-from the date of order .• (2) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be preferred • Order u/s.from the date on which the order is communicated • Order u/s.

Judge is vested power of stay the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer.• Appellate officer – may grant stay –the order of eviction • Every appeal under this section shall be disposed of by the appellate officer as expeditiously as possible • Case: Indian Bank vs Blaze & central (pvt) ltd. . 1986(1) RLR 560 Karnataka • The court held that Dist.

• E.10: Every order made by an Estate Officer or Appellate Officer u/this Act shall be final and shall not be called in any original suit.P & no injunction shall be granted by any court.• According to Sec. .

any public premises. he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months.• Section 11.. or with both . Offences and penalty. or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. • If any person unlawfully occupies.

14 the Estate Officer may issue a certificate for the amount due to the collector in case of failure of expenses of demolition. rent & costs by any person . • Acc to Sec.• The legal heirs/ legal representatives are liable to pay the arrears of rent/ damages/ ………. damages.

Ref case – law S. In the absence of such an order for recovery the collector cannot proceed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue . Motwani vs Collector of Delhi AIR 1974 Del 56 • The court held that for realization of the amounts due an order u/s.14 is the condition precedent.V.

16: Protection of action taken in good faith • S.• S. Power to make rules .15: Bar of Jurisdiction: • No court shall have jurisdiction to proceed/ entertain the procedure under this act • S.17:Delegation of Powers• S18.

CASE-LAW • Suhash H Pophale vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd & another • Dt of order 11/02/2014 • AIR SCW 1171 .

Whether the appellant was lawful tenant? If yes under what act Under what provision appeal lies before the city civil court? What was the order of appellate officer Under which section appeal lies before the High Court Can he be called as an unauthorized occupant What are the pro.C followed that ratio . Of 4 & 7 of the pp act What was the ratio laid down in Ashoka Marketing case Whether the H.

Facts of the case  Appellant was tenant of the MIC  MIC was merged with OIC with effect from 1-11974  MIC Management was taken over by the central government in 1971  Appellant obtained license from the original tenant in 1972  MIC had been informed about the same .

C. With costs  next. .supreme court . 1971 Eviction order passed against him – 1993 City Civil Court set aside the order of damages/ affirmed the order of ……… Bombay H.SLP.facts… Notices served under Section 4 and 7 of the Public Premises Act.. Dismissed the…….

act . • could not be evicted by invoking the provisions of Public Premises Act/ as an unauthorized occupant / under …….1974..the Bombay Rent Act • OIC acquiring the title over the property from 1.Arguments • The principal contention / occupation was protected under .1.

relationship between the erstwhile insurance company (landlord) & the appellant (occupant)governed under the Bombay Rent Act • the status of the occupant was that of a deemed tenant under the ……..Issues • The principal issue . • When a tenant protected as a “tenant/ deemed tenant” under the State Act .

. under the Public Premises Act are held to be bad in law • .Supreme court judgment • Writ Petition allowed / eviction order set aside. • The proceedings -….

1947 and its successor the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 1971 ('Public Premises Act' for short)? . 1999.Analysis of the Case This appeal by special leave raises the question as to whether the rights of an occupant/licensee/ tenant protected under a State Rent Control Act (Bombay Rent Act. in the instant case). could be adversely affected by application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.

This question arises in the context of the eviction order dated 28.2010.1972. The eviction order has been upheld by the Bombay High Court in its impugned judgment dated 7. 2.1993 passed by the respondent No.6.5. invoking the provisions of the Public Premises Act with respect to the premises occupied by the appellant since 20. .2473 of 1996 filed by the appellant herein.12. Estate Officer of the first respondent. rejecting the Writ Petition No.

Opposite Regal Cinema.12. Voller. thereafter migrated to Canada with his family. . • The appellant is a practicing physician.. the predecessor in title of the first respondent in respect of the premises being Flat No. Second Floor.1972 in favour of the appellant initially for a period of two years. Eric Voller was a tenant of the Indian Mercantile Insurance Company Ltd. Indian Mercantile Mansion Wodehouse Road.3.The erstwhile insurance company did not object to the appellant coming into exclusive possession of the said premises. Voller executed a leave and licence agreement in respect of these premises on 20. Colaba. Mumbai • This Mr. Mr.Facts Of Case • One Mr. and put him in exclusive possession thereof.

1973. it is the case of the appellant that when Mr. It is also his case that on 18. to use the premises for his clinic.e.1973.4. though for residential purposes only.In fact. he wrote to the said General Manager seeking a permission for a change of user i.1973. the General Manager of the said insurance company. . accepted the appellant as the tenant. started accepting the rent directly from the appellant.1. provided the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai gave no objection. the General Manager wrote back to him that the erstwhile insurance company had no objection to the change of user. It is also the case of the appellant that on 14. by his reply dated 16.3. thereafter. The said erstwhile insurance company. Voller sought the transfer of the tenancy to the appellant.

E.1974 into the first respondent company which is a Government Company. Initially the suit came to be dismissed for default.A. but an application was made under Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the said order. Suit No.1980 to Mr.7.5. addressed a notice dated 12. Voller terminating his tenancy with respect to the said premises. The management of the erstwhile insurance company had however been taken over by the Central Government with effect from 13. E. .The erstwhile insurance company subsequently merged on 1.1971. 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act' for short).1176/3742 of 1981 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act. thereafter. pending its nationalisation and that of other private insurance companies. and the suit remained pending. and then filed a suit for eviction against Mr. The first respondent.1. E. The application was allowed. under the provisions of the then applicable Bombay Rents. Voller and the appellant being R.

and to pay damages as specified therein for unauthorized occupation as claimed. The first respondent followed it by preferring Case No. to evict Mr.1984 to the first respondent requesting them to regularize his tenancy as a statutory tenant. however. 1971 to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the concerned premises. . E.The appellant then sent a letter dated 22. and also to recover the damages.11. The first respondent. 2 Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act. Voller and the appellant. served the appellant notices under Section 4 and 7 of the Public Premises Act.10 and 10A of 1992 before the respondent No.

4 of their case before the Estate Officer. the first respondent specifically accepted that Mr. the first respondent withdrew on 22. however.1993 stating that they did not have any record of the erstwhile insurance company prior to 1975. E. responded on 5. The appellant denied the allegation. The appellant filed a reply pointing out that he had been accepted as a tenant by the predecessor of the first respondent by their earlier referred letter dated 16. . It is.1973.2. The first respondent alleged that the appellant had carried out structural changes. The first respondent. though without any authority from the respondent No. relevant to note that in paragraph No. 1.1994 the suit filed in the Court of Small Causes.After initiating these proceedings. Voller had sublet or given on leave and licence basis or otherwise transferred his interest in the said flat to the appellant in or about 1972. however.1. He claimed that he had effected some essential minor repairs for maintenance of the premises since the first respondent was neglecting to attend the same.1.

1980.1993 directing eviction of Mr. which appeal was numbered as Misc. Voller and the appellant.ORDER OF ESTATE OFFICER (second respondent) The second respondent thereafter passed an order on 28.79/93. E.5. the appellant filed an appeal before the City Civil Court at Mumbai under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act.9. Appeal No. . and also for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs.6750 per month from 1. Being aggrieved by the said order.

1. . with costs. and remanded the matter to the second respondent to reconsider that aspect.2010.1996. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.ORDER OF CITY CIVIL COURT The City Civil Court set aside the order of damages. by the impugned judgment and order dated 7.1996 to challenge that part of the appellate order which upheld the order of eviction. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition bearing No.2473/1996 before the High Court on 15. but upheld the order of eviction by its judgment and order dated 17.6.4.

as in the instant case). 1971 („PPA‟ for short)? OR In other words – whether the tenants as well as licencees. .ISSUES Whether the rights of an occupant/licensee/ tenant protected under a State Rent Control Act (Bombay Rent Act. 1999. who are protected under the respective State Laws could be called unauthorised occupants on applying the provisions prescribed under the Public Premises Act to their premises as „belonging‟ to a Government Company. could be adversely affected by application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1947 and its successor the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. and if so from what date.

prior to the first respondent acquiring the title over the property from 1. he could not be evicted by invoking the provisions of Public Premises Act.1974. and even before the High Court.e. Therefore.1. was that his occupation of the concerned premises was protected under the newly added S 15A of the Bombay Rent Act with effect from 1.1973. i.ARGUMENTS The principal contention raised by the appellant right from the stage of the proceedings before the respondent No. and by treating him as an unauthorized occupant under that act . 2.2.

1971 wherefrom the management of the erstwhile insurance company was taken over by the Central Government. the appointed date under the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act.e. this judgment rejects the contention that the provisions of the Public Premises Act cannot be applied to the premises which fall within the ambit of a State Rent Control Act. As per the view taken by the High Court. and the said premises were covered under the Public Premises Act.e. The High Court principally relied upon the judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd.5. Punjab National Bank reported in 1990 (4) SCC 406. .1974.ORDER OF HIGH COURT The impugned order of the High Court rejected the said submission holding that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were not applicable to the premises concerned.1. Vs.1971 itself i. 1. and not from the date of merger i. The High Court held that the Public Premises Act became applicable to the concerned premises from 13.

The principal issue involved in the matter:. it has to be noted that the relationship between the erstwhile insurance company as the landlord and the appellant as the occupant. to permit eviction of the tenants only when a case is made out under the specified grounds. at all material times was governed under the Bombay Rent Act. Mr. Harin P. The legislature of Maharashtra thought it necessary to protect the licensees also in certain situations . Raval. this Act has been passed as a welfare measure. learned senior counsel has appeared for the respondents. the status of the occupant was that of a deemed tenant under the Rent Act and based thereupon he could not be said be in unauthorised occupation and his such right cannot be taken away by giving any retrospective effect to the provisions of PPA. and to provide for a forum and procedure for adjudication of the disputes between the landlords and the tenants. Rohinton F.It is this judgment which is under challenge in the present appeal. Nariman. In the above scenario. learned senior counsel has appeared for the appellant and Mr. Like all other rent control enactments.To begin with. amongst other reasons to protect the tenants against unjustified increases above the standard rent.

1996 passed by the City Civil Court.1. 1971.JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT The said Writ Petition shall stand allowed. 1999. it will be open to them to resort to the remedy available under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Mumbai. We however. are held to be bad in law. The proceedings for eviction from premises. as well as the eviction order dated 28. and for recovery of rent and damages initiated by the first respondent against the appellant under the Public Premises Act. and shall therefore stand dismissed. and the judgment and order dated 17.5. provided they make out a case thereof. 2 against the appellant will stand set aside. make it clear. that in case the respondents intend to take any steps for that purpose. .1993 passed by the respondent No.