Supreme Court of India
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALEversusORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 92
- Decided
- 11 February 2014
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- H L GOKHALE
Holding
A tenant protected under a State rent‑control statute (including deemed tenancy under Section 15A) cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant under the Public Premises Act, and the Act cannot be applied retrospectively to evict such a tenant.
Summary
Dr. Suhas H. Pophale occupied a flat in the Indian Mercantile Mansion under a leave‑and‑license agreement dated 20‑12‑1972, which was later deemed a tenancy under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act (effective 1‑Feb‑1973). The premises became owned by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., a government‑owned company, on 1‑Jan‑1974 after the merger of the predecessor insurer. Oriental Insurance invoked the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to evict the appellant, but the High Court held the Act applied from 13‑May‑1971, ordering eviction. The Supreme Court examined whether a tenant protected under a State rent‑control law could be treated as an "unauthorised occupant" under the Public Premises Act and whether the Act could be applied retrospectively. It held that the appellant’s status as a deemed tenant under the Bombay Rent Act (and its successor Maharashtra Rent Control Act) shielded him from the Public Premises Act until the premises actually became public premises on 1‑Jan‑1974, and that the Act could not be given retrospective effect. Consequently, the eviction order under the Public Premises Act was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to premises occupied by a tenant protected under the Bombay Rent Act/ Maharashtra Rent Control Act prior to the premises becoming public premises.
- Whether the Public Premises Act can be given retrospective effect to evict a protected tenant.
- From which date the definition of "public premises" under the Act becomes operative for the premises in question.
- The appropriate remedy for eviction of a protected tenant – whether under the Public Premises Act or the applicable State rent‑control legislation.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947s. 15A, s. 7(15)(a)(ii)
- General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972
- General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999s. 7(15)(a)(ii)
- Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971s. 1(3), s. 15, s. 19, s. 2(e)
Subjects
evictionpublic premises actrent controldeemed tenantretrospective legislationgovernment companyunauthorised occupationlease
Judgment
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 480
A DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE
v.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ITS ESTATE
OFFICER
(Civil Appeal No. 1970 of 2014)
B
FEBRUARY 11, 2014
[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR JJ.)
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED
C OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971:
ss.15 and 2(e) r/w s.2(d) - "Public premises" - Eviction of
unauthorized occupants - Appellant in occupation of suit
property belonging to predecessor-in-title of first respondent,
D Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Held: In Ashoka Marketing Ltd.,
it has been held that Rent Control Act and Public Premises
Act operated in two different areas -- The provisions of the two
enactments will have to be read harmoniously to permit the
operation and co-existence of both of them to the extent it can
E be done - In the instant case, appellant was protected as a
'deemed tenant' uls 15A of Bombay Rent Act, prior to the
merger of the erstwhile insurance company with first
respondent-Government Company and continued to be
protected as tenant uls 7(15)(a}(ii) of Maharashtra Rent
Control Act -- He could be removed only in accordance with
F the procedure available under Bombay Rent Act or
Maharashtra Rent Act - Leave and licence - Maharashtra
Rent Control Act, 1999 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging
House Rates Control Act, 1947 - s. 15-A.
G s.2(e) - "Public premises" - Eviction of unauthorized
occupants - Appellant in occupation of suit property prior to
their being acquired under the Act - Held: - The appellant's
status as a deemed tenant was accepted under the State
enactment and, therefore, he could not be said to be in
H 480
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 481
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER
"unauthorised occupation" -- His right granted by the State A
enactment cannot be destroyed by giving any retrospective
application to provisions of Public Premises Act, since there
is no such express provision in the statute, nor is it warranted
by any implication -- In fact premises occupied by him would
not come within the ambit of Public Premises Act, until they B
belonged to first respondent , i. e until 1. 1. 1974 -- If first
respondent wanted to evict the appellant, remedy was to resort
to the procedure available under Bombay Rent Act or its
successor Maharashtra Rent Act, by approaching the forum
thereunder, and not by resorting to the provisions of Public c
Premises Act.
s.2(e) - "Public premises" - Eviction of unauthorized
occupants - Held: In Ashoka Marketing, it has been obseNed
that Public Premises Act is enacted to deal with mischief of
'rampant unauthorised occupation' of public premises - D
Clause 2(1) of guidelines dated 30.5.2002 emphasises that
the Act was meant to evict (a) totally unauthorised occupants
of the public premises or subletees, or (b) employees who
have ceased to be in their seNice, and were ineligible to
occupy the premises -- "Guidelines to Prevent Arbitrary use E
of Powers to Evict Genuine Tenants from Public Premises
Under the Control of Public Sector Undertakings I Financial
Institutions (dated 30-5-2002, published in the Gazette of India
dated 8-6-2002).
F
Application of the Act - Held: For any premises to
become public premises, the relevant date will be 16.9.1958
or the date on which the premises become public premises
as belonging to or taken on lease by Corporation/ Companies
like the first respondent, whichever is later -- All those persons G
falling within the definition of 'tenant' occupying the premises
prior thereto will not come under the ambit of Public Premises
Act and cannot, therefore, be said to be persons in
''.unauthorised occupation" -- Whatever rights such prior .
tenants, members of their families or heirs of such tenants or H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A deemed tenants or all of those who fall within the definition of
'tenant' under the Bombay Rent Act have, are continued under
Maharashtra Rent Act -- If possession of premises in their
occupation is required, that will have to be resorted to by taking
steps under the Bombay Rent Act or Maharashtra Rent Act -
B - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
A leave and licence agreement in respect of the suit
premises belonging to Indian Mercantile Insurance
Company Ltd., the predecessor-in-title of the first
respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., was executed by
C the original tenant on 20.12.1972 in favour of the appellant
. It was the case of the appellant that Indian Mercantile
Insurance Company started accepting rent directly from
him. The Company merged on 1~1.1974 into the first
respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., a Government
Q Company, which addressed a notice dated 12.7.1980 to
the original tenant terminating his tenancy with respect
to the suit premises, and then filed a suit for eviction
against him and the appellant in the Small Causes Court,
under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and
E Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent
Act'). The appellant sent a letter dated 22.11.1984 to the
first respondent requesting them to regularize his
tenancy as a statutory tenant. The first respondent,
however, preferred Case No.10 and 10A of 1992 before
F the second respondent - Estate Officer, under the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
('Public Premises Act') to evict the original tenant and the
appellant, and also to recover the damages. The first
respondent withdrew on 22.2.1994 the suit filed in the
G Small Causes Court. The second respondent passed an
order on 28.5.1993 directing eviction of the original tenant
and the appellant, and also for recovery of damages. The
appellant filed an appeal u/s 9 of the Public Premises Act
before the City Civil Court, which set aside the order of
H damages, and remanded the matter to the second
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 483
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER
respondent to reconsider that aspect, but upheld the A
order of eviction. The appellant filed a writ petition before
the High Court mainly contending that his occupation of
the suit premises was protected under the newly added
s. 15A of the Bombay Rent Act with effect from 1.2.1973,
i.e. prior to the first respondent acquiring the title over the B
property from 1.1.1974 and, as such, he could not be
evicted by invoking the provisions of Public Premises
Act, by treating him as an unauthorised occupant. The
High Court relying upon the judgment in Ashoka
Marketing Ltd. held that the provisions of the Bombay c
Rent Act were not applicable to the suit premises, and the
said premises were covered under the Public Premises
Act, and dismissed the writ petition.
The question for consideration in the instant appeal
was: whether the rights of an occupant/licensee/tenant D
protected under a State Rent Control Act (Bombay Rent
Act, 1947 and its successor Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999, in the instant case) could be adversely affected
by application of the Public Premises Act, 1971.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The relationship between the erstwhile
insurance company as the landlord and the appellant as
the occupant, at all material times was governed under F
the Bombay Rent Act. The legislature thought it
necessary to protect the licensees also in certain
situations. Therefore, the Act was amended, and s. 15A
was inserted therein to protect the licensees who were
in occupation on 1.2.1973. (para 9] (496-C-E]
1.2 The General Insurance Business (Nationalisation)
Act, 1972 was passed on 20.9.1972. Section 16 of this Act
contemplated the merger of the private insurance
companies into certain other insurance companies.
Indian Mercantile Insurance Company Ltd., original H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A owner in the instant case, merged into the first
respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. w.e.f.
1.1.1974. In view of the merger of the erstwhile insurance
company into the first respondent, (of which not less than
51 per cent share holding was that of the Central
B Government), the Public Premises Act became applicable
to its premises. [Para 10 and 12) [497-i=; 498-B; 500-F]
Accountant and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union
of India 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 493 =1988 (4) SCC 324, and
C Smt. Saiyada Mossarrat Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd. 1988 (3)
Suppl. SCR 690 = 1989 (1) SCC 272 - cited.
1.3 In Ashoka Marketing Ltd., this Court has observed
that the Rent Control Act and the Public Premises Act
operate in two different areas, and the properties
D 'belonging to' the Central Government, Government
Companies or Corporations would be excluded from the
application of the Rent Control Act. [para 23) [509-F-G]
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank 1990
E (3) SCR 649 = 1990 (4) SCC 406 - referred to.
2.1 Section 19 of the Public Premises Act, 1971
repeals the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1958. Section 1(3) of the 1971 Act lays .
down that it shall be deemed to have come into force on
F the 16th day of September, 1958 except ss. 11, 19 and 20
which shall come into force at once (i.e. from 23.8.1971).
A conjoint reading of s. 1(3) and s. 2(e) defining 'public
premises' will be that although the provisions with
respect to eviction under the Act of 1971 are deemed to
G have come into force from 16.9.1958, they will apply to the
premises concerned only from the date when they
become public premises. [para 26) [512-G-H; 513-A-C)
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur vs. Model Mills,
H Nagpur and Anr. 1985 SCR 751 = AIR 1984 SC 1813; and
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 485
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER
Bhuri Nath and Ors. vs. State of J&K and Ors. 1997 (1) SCR A
138 =AIR 1997 SC 1711 - relied on.
M. Mohd vs. Union of India AIR 1982 Bombay 443;
Mahomed Amir Ahmad Khan vs. Municipal Board of Sitapur,
AIR 1965 SC 1923 -- distinguished B
'History of Insurance of India' published by Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority' (/RDA) on its official
website on 12.07.2007 under Ref: IRDAIGEN/0612007 -
referred to.
c
2.2 The Public Premises Act, provides a speedy
remedy to recover the premises from unauthorised
occupants. At the same time, it must also be noted that
the appellant is seeking protection uls 15A of the Bombay
Rent Act, which has a non-obstante clause. The o
provisions of the two enactments will have to be read
harmoniously to permit the operation and co-existence
of both of them to the extent it can be done. Therefore,
the term 'belonging to' as occurring in the definition of
public premises in s. 2(e) will have to be interpreted E
meaningfully to imply only the premises owned by or
taken on lease by the Government Company at the
relevant time. In the facts of the case, the appellant had
the status of a deemed tenant under the Bombay Rent
Act, 1947 w.e.f. 1.2.1973, i.e., prior to the premises
'belonging to a Government Company' and becoming
F
public premises, i. e. 1.1.1974. If at all he had to be
evicted, it was necessary to follow the due process of law
which would mean the process as available under the
Bombay Rent Act or its successor Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999, and not the one which is provided G
under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. [Para 30)
[518-D, G; 519-A-D]
3.1 It has been laid down by this Court time and again
that if there are rights created in favour of any person, H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A whether they are property rights or rights arising from a
transaction in the nature of a contract, and, particularly,
if they are protected under a statute, and if they are to be
taken away by any legislation, that legislation will have to
say so specifically by giving it a retrospective effect, as
B prima facie every legislation is prospective. In the instant
case, the appellant was undoubtedly protected as a
'deemed tenant' u/s 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, prior to
the merger of the erstwhile insurance company with a
Government Company, and he could be removed only by
c following the procedure available under the Bombay Rent
Act. A 'deemed tenant' under the Bombay Rent Act,
.continued to be protected under the succeeding Act, in
view of the definition of a 'tenant' u/s 7(15)(a)(ii) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Thus, as far as the
tenants of the premises which are not covered under the
0
Public Premises Act are concerned, those occupants who
were deemed tenants under the Bombay Rent Act,
continued to have their protection under the Maharashtra
Rent Control Act, 1999, notwithstanding s. 15 of the
E Public Premises Act, which creates a bar of jurisdiction
to entertain suits or proceedings in respect of eviction of
any person in an unauthorised occupation. The Public
Premises Act will apply only to those who come in such
occupation. after the date of the premises becoming
public premises. [para 31 and 45] [519-H; 520-A-D; 530-
F C, E]
Janardan Reddy vs. The State 1950 SCR 940 = AIR 1951
SC 124; Garkiapati Veeraya vs. N. Subbiah Choudhry, in
1957 SCR 488 =AIR 1957 SC 540; Mahadeola/ Kanodia vs.
G The Administrator General of West Bengal 1960 SCR 578 =
AIR 1960 SC 936; K.S. Paripooman vs. State of Kera/a, AIR
1995 SC 1012; and Gajraj Singh vs. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal 1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 172 =AIR 1997 SC
412 - relied on.
H
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 487
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER
Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao vs. Amireddi Sitharamamma, A
1965 SCR 122 =AIR 1965 SC 1970; J.P. Jani, Income Tax
Officer, Circle IV, Ward G, Ahmedabad vs. lnduprasad
Devshanker Bhatt, 1969 SCR 714 =AIR 1969 SC 778; Ex-
Capt., K.C. Arora vs. State of Haryana 1984 (3) SCR 623 =
1984 (3) SCC 281; and Arjan Singh vs. State of Punjab 1969 B
SCR 347 =AIR 1970 SC 703 - referred to.
3.2 For any premises to become public premises, the
relevant date will be 16.9.1958 or the date on which the
premises become public premises as belonging to or c
taken on lease by LIC or the Nationalised Banks or the
General Insurance Companies like the first respondent,-
whichever is later. All those persons falling within the
definition of a tenant occupying the premises prior
thereto will not come under the ambit of the Public 0
Premises Act and cannot, therefore, be said to be persons
in "unauthorised occupation". Whatever rights such prior
tenants, members of their families or heirs of such
tenants or deemed tenants or all of those who fall within
the definition of a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act
have, are continued under the Maharashtra Rent Act.· If E
possession of premises in their occupation is required,
that will have to be resorted to by taking steps under th~
Bombay Rent Act or Maharashtra Rent Act. If person
concerned has come in occupation subsequent to such
date, tben of course the Public Premises Act will apply. F
[para 44] [529-F-H; 530-A-BJ
3.3 The appellant's status as a deemed tenant was
accepted under the State enactment and, therefore, he
could not be said to be in "unauthorised occupation". His G
right granted by the State enactment cannot be destroyed
by givjng any retrospective application to the provisions
.of Public Premises Act, since there is no such express
provision in the statute, nor is it warranted by any
implication. In fact his premises would not come within H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A the ambit of the Public Premises Act, until they belonged
to respondent No. 1, i.e until 1.1.1974. The corollary is that
if respondent No. 1 wanted to evict the appellant, the
remedy was to resort to the procedure available under
the Bombay Rent Act or its successor Maharashtra Rent
B Control Act, by approaching the forum thereunder, and
not by resorting to the provisions of the Public Premises
Act. [para 39] [524-H; 525-A-C]
Banatwala and Co. vs. UC 2011 (14) SCR 533 = 2011
C (13) SCC 446; Jain Ink Manufacturing Company v. L.l.C 1981
(1) SCR 498 = (1980) 4 SCC 435 - referred to.
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Asha/ata S. Guram,
1986 (3) SCR 866 - cited.
0 4.1 In Ashoka Marketing, the Constitution Bench has
observed that the Public Premises Act is enacted to deal
with mischief of 'rampant unauthorised occupation' of
public premises. It is significant to note that there has
been a criticism of the use of the powers under the Public
E Premises Act, and the manner in which they are used in
an arbitrary way to evict the genuine tenants from the
public premises causing serious hardships to them. The
Central Government has therefore, issued the guidelines·-
by Resolution No. 21012/1/2000-Pol.1, dated 30-5-2002, to
prevent such arbitrary use of these powers. It is
F emphasized in Clause 2(i) of the guidelines that the Act
was meant to evict: (a) totally unauthorised occupants of
the public premises or subletees, or (b) employees who
have ceased to be in their service, and were ineligible to
occupy the premises. Clause 2 (iii) indicates that for
G resuming possession in certain situations, where the
tenants are protected under the State Rent Control Act
prior to the Public Premises Act becoming applicable, the
public authorities will have to move under the Rent
Control Acts on the grounds which are available to the
H private landlords. The powers are given to act for
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 489
CO. LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER
specified reasons, and are expected to be used only in A
justified circumstances and not otherwise. [para 40-43]
[525-D-H; 527-G; 528-B, C-D; 529-C]
New Insurance Assurance Company vs. Nusli Neville
Wadia 2007 (13) SCR 598 = 2008 (3) SCC 279 - referred
B
to.
4.2 As far as the eviction of unauthorised occupants
from public premises is concerned, it is covered under
the Public Premises Act, but it is so covered from
16.9.1958, or from the later date when the premises C
concerned become public premises. Thus, there are two
categories of occupants of the public corporations who
get excluded from the coverage of the Act itself. Firstly,
those who are in occupation since prior to 16.9.1958, i.e.
prior to the Act becoming applicable, are clearly outside D
the coverage of the Act. Secondly, those who come in
occupation, thereafter, but prior to the date of the
premises belonging to a Government Corporation or a
Company, and are covered under a protective provision
of the State Rent Act, like the appellant, also get. E
excluded. Until such date, the Bombay Rent Act and its
successor Maharashtra Rent Control Act will continue to
govern the relationship between the occupants of such
premises on the one hand, and such government
companies and corporations on the other. Therefore, with
respect to such occupants it will not be open to such F
companies or corporations to issue notices, and to
proceed against such occupants under the Public
Premises Act, and such proceedings will be void and
illegal. Similarly, it will be open for such occupants of
these premises to seek declaration of their status, and G
other rights such as transmission of the tenancy to the
legal heirs etc. under the Bombay Rent Act or its
successor Maharashtra Rent Control Act, and also to
seek protective reliefs in the nature of injunctions against
unjustified actions or orders of eviction if so passed, by H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 2 S.C.R.
A approaching the forum provided' under the State Act
which alone will have the jurisdiction to entertain such
proceedings. [para 48] [532-C-H; 533-A]
Pradip Chandra Parija vs. Pramod Chandra, 2001 (5)
B Suppl. SCR 460= 2002 (1) SCC 1; Sundarjas Kanya/a/
Bhatija vs. Collector, Thane, Maharashtra and Ors. 1989 (3)
SCR 405 =1989 (3) sec 396 - cited.
4.3 Since the issue of retrospective application of the
Public Premises Act, to tenancies entered into before
C 16.9.1958, or before the property in question becoming a
public premises, was neither canvassed nor considered
by the Constitution Bench in Ashoka Marketing, the
decision does not, in any way, prevent this Court from
clarifying the law regarding the same. [para 51] [535-D-E]
D
State of Haryana vs. Ranbir@ Rana, 2006 (3) SCR 864
= (2006) 5 SCC 167; and Commissioner of Income Tax vs.
Mis. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR
732 = AIR1993 SC 43 - referred to.
E 4.4 The impugned judgment and order dated 7.6.2010
rendered by the High Court is set aside. The writ petition
shall stand allowed, and the judgment and order dated
17.1.1996 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, as well
as the eviction order dated 28.5.1993 passed by
F respondent No. 2 against the appellant will stand set
aside. The proceedings for eviction from premises, and
for recovery of rent and damages initiated by the first
respondent against the appellant under the Public
Premises Act, 1971, are held to be bad in law, and shall
G therefore stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that
in case the respondents intend to take any steps for that
purpose, it will be open to them to resort to the remedy
available under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
[para 52) [536-E-G]
H
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE 491
CO. LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER
Case Law Reference: A
1990 (3) SCR 649 referred to para 7
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 493 referred to para 19
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 690 referred to para 19 ·
B
1986 (3) SCR 866 cited para 25
AIR 1982 Bombay 443 distinguished para 28
AIR 1965 SC 1923 distinguished para 28
c
1985 SCR 751 relied on para 29
1997 (1) SCR 138 relied on para 29
1950 SCR 940 relied on para 31
1957 SCR 488 relied on para 32 D
1960 SCR 578 relied on para 33
1965 SCR 122 referred to para 34
1969 SCR 714 referred to para 34 E
1969 SCR 347 referred to para 35
1984 (3) SCR 623 referred to para 36
AIR 1995 SC 1012 relied on para 37
F
1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 172 relied on para 38
2007 (13) SCR 598 referred to para 43
2011 (14) SCR 533 referred to para 46
1981 (1) SCR 498
G
referred to para 47
2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 460 cited para 49
1989 (3) SCR 405 cited para 49
H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A 2006 (3) SCR 864 referred to para 51
1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 732 referred to para 51
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1970 of 2014.
B
From the judgment and order dated 07.06.2010 of the
High Court of Bombay in WP No. 2473 of 1996.
R.F. Nariman, Gaurav Goel, Manasi Kumar, Manu
Aggarwal (for E.C. Agrawala) for the Appellant.
c
Harin P. Raval, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal, Payal Dayal,
S.M. Suri, P.S. ,Johar, Divya Anand for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D H.L. GOKHALE J. 1. Leave granted.
2. 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, 1947 and
E its successor the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, in the
instant case), could be adversely affected by application of.1he
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971 ('Public Premises Act' for short)? This question arises in
the context of the eviction order dated 28.5.1993 passed by
F the respondent No. 2, Estate Officer of the first respondent,
invoking the provisions of the Public Premises Act with respect
to the premises occupied by the appellant since 20.12.1972.
The eviction order has been upheld by the Bombay High Court
in Jts impugned judgment dated 7:6.2010, rejecting the Writ
G Petition No.2473 of 1996 filed by the appellant herein.
The facts leading to this appeal are this wise:-
3. One Mr. Eric Voller was a tenant of the Indian Mercantile
Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
H erstwhile Insurance Co.), the predecessor in title of the first
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 493
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
respondent in respect of the premises being Flat No.3, Second A
Floor, Indian Mercantile Mansion (formerly known as Waterloo
Mansion), Wodehouse Road, Opposite Regal Cinema, Colaba,
Mumbai. This Mr. Voller executed a leave and licence
agreement in respect of these premises on 20.12.1972 in
favour of the appellant initially for a period of two years, and B
put him in exclusive possession thereof. Mr. Voller, thereafter
migrated to Canada with his family. The appellant is a practicing
physician. The erstwhile insurance company did not object to
the appellant coming into exclusive possessio~ qf ,t~e said
premises. In fact, it is the case of the appellant that when Mr.' c
Voller sought the transfer of the tenancy to the appellant, the
General Manager of the said insurance company, by his reply
dated 16.1.1973, accepted the appellant as the tenant, though
for residential purposes only. The said erstwhile insurance
company, thereafter, started accepting the rent directly from the D
appellant. It is also the case of the appellant that on 14.3.1973,
he wrote to the said General Manager seeking a ·permission
for a change of user i.e. to use the premises for his clinic. It is
also his case that on_ 18.4.1973, the General Manager wrote
back to him that the erstwhile insurance company had no
E
objection to the change of user, provided the Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai gave no objection.
4. The erstwhile insurance company subsequently merged
on 1.1.1974 into the first respondent company which is a
Government Company. The management of the erstwhile F
insurance company had however been taken over by the
Central Government with effect from 13.5.1971, pending its
nationalisation and that of other private insurance companies.
The first respondent, thereafter, addressed a notice dated
12.7.1980 to Mr. E. Voller terminating his tenancy with respect G
to the said premises, and then filed a suit for eviction against
Mr. E. Voller and the appellant being R.A.E. Suit No.1176/3742
of 1981 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, under the
provisions of the then applicable Bombay Rents, Hotel and
Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act' H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A for short). Initially the suit came to be dismissed for default, but
an application was made under Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil
Procedure to set aside the said order. The application was
allowed, and the suit remained pending.
B 5. The appellant then sent a letter dated 22.11.1984 to the
first respondent requesting them to regularize his tenancy as a
statutory tenant. The first respondent, however, served the
appellant notices under Section 4 and 7 of the Public Premises
Act, to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from
C the concerned premises, and to pay damages as specified
therein for unauthorised occupation as claimed. The first
respondent followed it by preferring Case No.10 and 1OA of
1992 before the respondent No. 2 Estate Officer under the
Public Premises Act, to evict Mr. E. Voller and the appellant,
and also to recover the damages. After initiating these
D proceedings, the first respondent withdrew on 22.2.1994 the
suit filed in the Court of Small Causes. It is, however, relevant
to note that in paragraph No. 4 of their case before the Estate
Officer, the first respondent specifically accepted that Mr. E.
Voller had sublet or given on leave and licence basis or
E otherwise transferred his interest in the said flat to the appellant
in or about 1972, though without any authority from the
respondent No. 1. The first respondent alleged that the
appellant had carried out structural changes. The appellant
denied the allegation. He claimed that he had effected some
F essential minor repairs for maintenance of the premises since
the first respondent was neglecting to attend the same. 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 16.1.1973. The first respondent,
G however, responded on 5.1.1993 stating that they did not have
any record of the erstwhile insurance company prior to 1975.
The second respondent thereafter passed an order on
28.5.1993 directing eviction of Mr. E. Voller and the appellant,
and also for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs.6750 per
H month from 1.9.1980.
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 495
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed A
an appeal before the City Civil Court at Mumbai under Section
9 of the Public Premises Act, which appeal was numbered as
Misc. Appeal No.79/93. The City Civil Court set aside the order
of damages, and remanded the matter to the second
respondent to reconsider that aspect, but upheld the order of B
eviction by its judgment and order dated 17 .1.1996. The
appellant thereupon filed a writ petition bearing No.2473/1996
before the High Court on 15.4.1996 to challenge that part of
the appellate order which upheld the order of eviction. The High
Court dismissed the Writ Petition, by the impugned judgment c
and order dated 7.6.2010, with costs.
7. The principal contention raised by the appellant right
from the stage of the proceedings before the respondent No.
2, and even before the High Court, was that his occupation of
. the concerned premises was protected under the newly added D
S 15A of the Bombay Rent Act with effect from 1.2.1973, i.e.
prior to the first respondent acquiring the title over the property
from 1.1.1974. Therefore, he could not be evicted by invoking
the provisions of Public Premises Act, and by treating him as
an unauthorised occupant under that act. The impugned order E
of the High Court rejected the said submission holding that the
provisions of the ijombay Rent Act were not applicable to the
premises concerned, and the said premises were covered
under the Public Premises Act. The High Court principally relied
upon the judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in F
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in
1990 (4) SCC 406. As per the view taken by the High Court,
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. The High Cou1t G
held that the Public Premises Act became applicable to the
concerned premises from 13.5.1971 itself i.e. the appointed
date under the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act,
1971 wherefrom the management of the erstwhile insurance
company was taken over by the Central Government, and not H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 2 S.C.R.
A from the date of merger i.e. 1.1.1974. It is this judgment which
is under challenge in the present appeal.
8. Mr. Rohinton F. Nariman, learned senior counsel has
appeared for the appellant and Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned
B senior counsel has appeared for the respondents.
The principal issue involved in the matter:-
9. To begin with, it has to be noted that the relationship
between the erstwhile insurance company as the landlord and
c the appellant as the occupant, at all material times was
governed under the Bombay Rent Act. Like all other rent control
enactments, this Act has been passed as a welfare measure,
amongst other reasons to protect the tenants against unjustified
increases above the standard rent, to permit eviction of the
o tenants only when a case is made out under the specified
grounds, and to provide for a forum and procedure for
adjudication of the disputes between the landlords and the
tenants. The legislature of Maharashtra thought it necessary to
protect the licensees also in certain situations. Therefore, this
E act was amended, and a section was inserted therein bearing
Section No.15A to protect the licensees who were in
occupation on 1.2.1973. This Section reads as follows:-
"15A. Certain licensees in occupation on 1st February
1973 to become tenants
F
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this
Act or anything contrary in any other law for the time
being in force, or in any contract where any person is on
the 1st day of February 1973 in occupation of any
G premises, or any part thereof which is not less than a
room, as a licensee he shall on that date be deemed to
have become, for the purpose of this Act, the tenant of
the landlord, in respect of the premises or part thereof,
in his occupation.
H
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 497
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not affect in any A
manner the operation of sub-section (1) of section 15 after
the date aforesaid. "
We may note that S 15(1) prohibits sub-letting of premises.
B
10. As far as the insurance business in India is concerned,
prior to independence, it was owned and operated by private
entities. The governing law for insurance in India was, and still
is the Insurance Act, 1938. Post-independence, the Industrial
Policy Resolution of 1956 stated that the Life Insurance industry
in India was to be nationalised. Therefore, the Life Insurance C
Corporation Act of 1956 was passed creating the Life Insurance
Corporation (UC), as a statutory corporation, and transferring
the assets of all the private life insurance companies in India
to UC. Sometimes around 1970-71, it was felt that the general
insurance industry was also in need of nationalisation. D
Therefore, first the General Insurance (Emergency Provisions)
Act, 1971 was passed by the Parliament which provided for the
taking over of the management of general insurance business.
Though the Act received the assent of the President on
17.6.1971, it was deemed to have come into force on E
13.5.1971 from which date the Central Government assumed
the management of General Insurance Business as an initial
step towards the nationalisation. Thereafter, the General
Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 was passed on
20.9.1972. Section 16 of this Act contemplated the merger of F
the private insurance companies into certain other insurance
companies. Consequently, these private insurance companies
merged into four insurance companies viz.,
(a) The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
G
(b) The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
(c) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and
(d) The United India Insurance Company Ltd.
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A These four companies are fully owned subsidiaries of the
General Insurance Corporation of India which is a Government
Company registered under Companies Act, 1956, but
incorporated as mandated under Section 9 of the above
referred Nationalisation Act. The Central Government holds not
B less than 51 per cent of the paid up share capital of the General
Insurance Corporation. The above referred Indian Mercantile
Insurance Company Ltd. merged into the first respondent-
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. w.e.f. 1.1.1974.
11. There is one more important development which is
C required to be noted. The Public Premises Act, 1971 (40 of
1971) came to be passed in the meanwhile. As per its
preamble, it is "an act to provide for eviction of unauthorised
occupants from public premises and for certain incidental
matters" such as removal of unauthorised construction, recovery
D of arrears of rent etc. It came into force on 23.8.1971, but
Section 1(3) thereof states that it shall be deemed to have
come into force on 16.9.1958, except Section 11 (on offences
and penalty) and Sections 19 and 20 (on repeal and validation).
This is because from 16.9.1958, its predecessor Act viz. The
E Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (32
of 1958) was in force for similar purposes, and which was
repealed by the above referred Section 19 of the 1971 Act. As
provided under Section 2 (e) (2) (i) of this Act, the definition of
'Public Premises', amongst others, covers the premises
F belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any company
in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share
capital was held by the Central Government. The definition of
public premises under Section 2(e) of this Act reads as
follows:-
G
"2. Definitions .....
[(e) ''public premises" means-
(1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or
H requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 499
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
Government, and includes any such premises A
which have been placed by the Government,
whether before or after the commencement of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980, under the
control of the Secretariat of either House of B
Parliament for providing residential
accommodation to any member of the staff of that
Secretariat;
(2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or C
on behalf of,-
(i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in which not less
than fifty-one per cent of the paid-up share capital
is held by the Central Government or any company D
which is a subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act)
of the first-mentioned company,
(ii) any Corporation [not being a company as defined
in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of E
1956), or a local authority] established by or under
a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central
Government,
(iii) any University established or incorporated by any
Central Act, F
(iv) any Institute incorporated by the Institutes of
Technology Act, 1961 (59 of 1961 ),
(v) any Board of Trustees constituted under the Major
Port Trusts Act, 1963 (38 of 1963), G
(vi) the Bhakra Management Board constituted under
Section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966
(31 of 1966), and that Board as and when renamed
as the Bhakra-Beas Management Board under sub- H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A 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;
B (viii) any Cantonment Board consitituted under the
Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924); and]
(3) in relation to the [National Capital Territory of Delhi],-
(i) any premises belonging to the Municipal
c Corporation of Delhi, or any municipal committee
or notified area committee,
(ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development
Authority, whether such premises are in the
D possession of, or leased out by, the said Authority,
[and]
[(iii) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or
requisitioned by, or on behalf of any State
E Government or the Government of any Union
Territory;]"
12. The consequence of this development was that in view
of the merger of the erstwhile insurance company into the first
respondent, (of which not less than 51 per cent share holding
F was that of the Central Government,) the Public Premises Act
became applicable to its premises. It is the contention of the
appellant that although the Act is otherwise deemed to have
come into force from 16.9.1958, as far as the present premises
are concerned, the Act became applicable to them from
G 1.1.1974 when the erstwhile insurance company merged into
the first respondent. Then only it could be said that the premises
'belonged' to a Government Company. However, since the
appellant's occupation of the said premises was protected by
Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act which Section had
H become enforceable prior thereto from 1.2.1973, he could not
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 501
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
be said to be in 'unauthorised occupation' and, therefote, could A
not be evicted by invoking the provisions of the Public Premises
Act. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that
the Public Premises Act became applicable to the concerned
premises from 13.5.1971 itself, when the management of the
erstwhile insurance company was taken over by the Central B
Government, and the rejection of the writ petition by the High
Court on that ground was justified. The principal issue involved
in this matter is thus about the applicability of the Public
Premises Act to the premises occupied by the appellant.
Submissions of the rival counsel:-
c
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nariman
submitted that the finding of the High Court that the Public
Premises Act applies to these premises from 13.5.1971 was
an erroneous one. That was the date on which the Central D
Government assumed the management of the erstwhile private
insurance company. The erstwhile insurance company
continued to exist until it merged in the appellant-company w.e.f.
1.1.1974. In the circumstances, although the Public Premises
Act came into force on 23.8.1971 (with deemed date of coming E
into force being 16.9.1958), and although the appointed date
for assuming management was 13.5.1971, the premises could
be said to have 'belonged' to the first respondent as per the
definition under Section 2(E)(2)(i) of the Act, only from
1.1.1974, when the merger took place. Prior thereto the F
Bombay Rent Act had been amended and the licensees in
occupation, were declared as deemed tenants, by virtue of
Section 15A of the said Act. The appellant has been in
continuous occupation of the said premises as a licensee from
20.12.1972. On 1.2.1973 his status got elevated to that of a G
'deemed tenant' which was prior to the respondent No. 1
becoming owner of the building from 1.1.1974. The submission
of Mr. Nariman was that the appellant had a vested right under
the statute passed by the State Legislature protecting the
licensees, and since the Public Premises Act became
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A applicable from 1.1.1974, the rights of the tenants and also
those of the licensees protected under the State Act prior to
1.1.1974, could not be taken away by the application of the
Public Premises Act which can apply only prospectively. In his
submission the eviction proceedings under the Public Premises
B Act against the appellant were therefore, null and void. The only
remedy available for the first respondent for evicting the
appellant would be under the Bombay Rent Act or under the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 which has replaced the
said Act with effect from 31.3.2000. We may note at this stage
c that Mr. Nariman made a statement that the appellant is making
out a case on the basis of his legal rights as a protected
licencee, and not on the basis of the earlier mentioned
correspondence between the appellant and the er~twhile
insurance company. :
D 14. Learned senior counsel for the respondents Mr. Raval,
on the other hand, submitted that once the management of the
erstwhile insurance company was taken over, the Public
Premises Act became applicable. therefore, it was fully
permissible for the first respondent to initiate the proceedings
E to evict the appellant from the public premises. In his view, the
legal position, in this behalf, has been settled by the judgment
of the Constitution Bench in the above referred Ashoka
Marketing case, and the view taken by the High Court with
respect to the date of applicability of the Public Premises Act
F was in consonance with the said judgment.
15. As against that, it is the submission of the Mr. Nariman
that the judgment in Ashoka Marketing (supra) has to be
understood in its context, and that it did not lay down any such
G wide proposition as Mr. Raval was canvassing. He pointed out
that the judgment in Ashoka Marketing (supra) was with respect
to the overriding effect of the Public Premises Act vis-a-vis the
Delhi Rent Control Act, which are both Acts passed by the
Parliament, and where the premises fall within the ambit of both
the enactments. In the instant case, we are concerned with one
H
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 503
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L: GOKHALE, J.]
Act passed by the Parliament, and another by a State A-
1 Legislature. That apart, in his submission, the Public Premises
Act must firstly apply to the concerned premises, and in his
submission the concerned premises did not fall within the ambit
of that act. That being so, in any case, the rights of the tenants
who were protected under the State Act prior to passing of this B
Act, could not be said to have been extinguished by virtue of
coming into force of the Public Premises Act.
Consideration of the submissions
The Judgment in the case of Ashoka Marketing c
. 16. Inasmuch as, the judgment in the case of Ashoka
Marketing (supra) is crucial for determining the issue in
controversy, it would be relevant to refer to the said decision
in detail. When we analyse the judgment in Ashoka Marketing
0
(supra), we have to first see as to what was the subject matter
of the controversy before this Court in Ashoka Marketing? It was
with respect to the eviction of the occupants from the premises
owned by Punjab National Bank and Allahabad Bank which are
both nationalised banks, and by Life Insurance Corporation,
which is a Statutory Corporation. In paragraph 1 of this judgment E
of the Constitution Bench, the question framed by the Court for
its consideration was as follows:-
''whether a person who was inducted as a tenant in
premises, which are public premises for the purpose of F
the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Public Premises Act?, and whose tenancy has expired
or has been terminated, can be evicted from the said
premises as being a person in unauthorised occupation G
of the premises under the provisions of the Public
Premises Act and whether such a person can invoke the
protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Rent Control Act?. In short, the question
is, whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A would override the provisions of the Rent Control Act in
relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the
enactments."
(emphasis supplied)
B 17. We may refer to the definition of "unauthorised
occupation" as provided under Section 2(g) of the Public
Premises Act at this stage. It reads as follows:-
"2. Definitions ....
c (g) "unauthorised occupation", in relation to any
public premises, 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
D (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."
E As can be seen from this definition, it consists of two parts. In
paragraph 30 of the above judgment also, this Court noted that
the definition of 'unauthorized occupation' in Section 2(g) of the
Public Premises Act, was in two parts. The first part of this
definition deals with persons who are in occupation of the Public
F Premises 'without authority for such occupation', and the
second part deals with those in occupation of public premises,
whose authority to occupy the premises 'has expired or has
been determined for any reason whatsoever'. As stated in
paragraph 1 of the judgment, the Constitution Bench was
G concerned with the second part of the definition. As far as these
two parts are concerned, the Court observed in paragraph 30
as follows:-
"30. The definition of the expression 'unauthorised
occupation' contained in Section 2(g) of the Public
H
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 505
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
Premises Act is in two parts. In the first part the said A
expression has been defined to mean the occupation by
any person of the public premises without authority for
such occupation. It implies occupation by a person who
has entered into occupation of any public premises
without lawful authority as well as occupation which was B
permissive at the inception but has ceased to be so. The
second part of the definition is inclusive in nature and it
expressly covers 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 c
he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or
has been determined for any reason whatsoever. This
part covers a case where a person had entered into
occupation legally under valid authority but who continues
in occupation after the authority under which he was put 0
in occupation has expired or has been determined. The
words "whether by way of grant or any other mode of
transfer" in this part of the definition are wide in amplitude
and would cover a lease because lease is a mode of
transfer under the Transfer of Property Act. The definition E
of unauthorised occupation contained in Section 2(g) of
the Public Premises Act would, therefore, cover a case
where a person has entered into occupation of the public
premises legally as a tenant under a lease but whose
tenancy has expired or has been determined in
accordance with law. " F
18. Thereafter, the Court dealt with the issue of conflict
between the two enactments and whether the Public Premises
Act, would override the Delhi Rent Control Act. As this Court
noted in paragraph 49 of the said judgment, both these statutes G
have been enacted by the same legislature, i.e. Parliament, in
exercise of the legislative powers in respect of the matters
enumerated in the Concurrent List. With respect to the rent
control legislations enacted by the State Legislatures, this Court
observed in paragraph 46 as follows:- H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A "46. As regards rent control legislation enacted by
the State Legislature the position is well settled that such
legislation falls within the ambit of Entries 6, 7 and 13 of
List Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution (See.
lndu Bhushan Bose Vs. Rama Sundari Devi 1, V.
B Dhanpal Chettiar case 2 ; Jai Singh Jairam Tyagi Vs.
Mamanchand Rafi/al Agarwa/3 and Accountant and
Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of lndia 4 ."
1. (1969) 2 sec 289 : (1970) 1 scR 443, 2. (1979)
c 4 sec 214 : (1980) 1 scR 334
3. (1980) 3 sec 152 : (1980) 3 scR 224, 4. (1988)
4 sec 324
19. As far as Public Premises Act is concerned, paragraph
D 48 of this judgment, referred to the earlier judgments in
Accountant and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of
India reported in 1988 (4) SCC 324, and Smt. Saiyada
Mossarrat Vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd. reported in 1989 (1) SCC
272. In Accountant and Secretarial Service Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
E this Court had held that the Public Premises Act is also
referable to Entries .6, 7 and 13 of the Concurrent List. At the
end of paragraph 48, of Ashoka Marketing this Court held:-
" ...... ..... There is no inconsistency between the
decisions of this Court in Accountant and Secretarial
F
Services Pvt. Ltd. and Smt. Saiyada Mossarrat case in
as much as in both the decisions it is held that the Public
Premises Act insofar as it deals with a lessee or licensee
of premises other than premises belonging to the Central
Government has been enacted in exercise of the
G legislative powers in respect of matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List. We are in agreement with this view."
20. Thereafter, on the question as to whether the Public
Premises Act overrides the Delhi Rent Control Act, this Court
H observed as follows at the end of paragraph 49:-
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 507
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
"In our opinion the question as to whether the A
provisions of the Public Premises Act override the
provisions of the Rent Control Act will have to be
considered in the light of the principles of statutory
interpretation applicable to laws made by the same
legislature." B
In this context, the Court noted that the two principles which are
to be applied are (i) later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws,
and (ii) a general provision does not derogate from a special
one. In paragraph 54, the Court noted that Public Premises Act C
is a later enactment having been enacted on 23.8.1971,
whereas the Delhi Rent Control Act, was enacted on
31.12.1958. Thereafter the Court observed in paragraph 55 as
follows:-
"55. the Rent Control Act makes a departure from D
the general law regulating the relationship of landlord and
tenant contained in the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch
as it makes provision for determination of standard rent,
it specifies the grounds on which a landlord can seek the
eviction of a tenant, it prescribes the forum for E
adjudication of disputes between landlords and tenants
and the procedure which has to be followed in such
proceedings. The Rent Control Act can, therefore, be
said to be a special statute regulating the relationship of
landlord and tenant in the Union territory of Delhi. The F
Public Premises Act makes provision for a speedy
machinery to secure eviction of unauthorised occupants
from public premises. As opposed to the general law
which provides for filing of a regular suit for recovery of
possession of property in a competent court and for trial G
of such a suit in accordance with the procedure laid down
in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Public Premises Act
confers the power to pass an order of eviction of an
unauthorised occupant in a public premises on a
designated officer and prescribes the procedure to be
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A followed by the said officer before passing such an order.
Therefore, the Public Premises Act is also a special
statute relating to eviction of unauthorised occupants
from public premises. In other words, both the
enactments, namely, the Rent Control Act and the Public
B Premises Act, are special statutes in relation to the
matters dealt with therein. Since, the Public Premises Act
is a special statute and not a general enactment the
exception contained in the principle that a subsequent
general law cannot derogate from an earlier special law
c cannot be invoked and in accordance with the principle
that the later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws, the
Public Premises Act must prevail over the Rent Control
Act."
(emphasis supplied)
D
21. In paragraph 62, this Court noted the objects and
reasons of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which are as follows:-
62..... (a) to devise a suitable machinery for expeditious
adjudication of proceedings between landlords and
E
tenants;
(b) to provide for the determination of the standard rent
payable by tenants of the various categories of premises
which should be fair to the tenants, and at the same time,
F provide incentive for keeping the existing houses in good
repairs, and for further investments in house construction;
and
(c) to give tenants a larger measure of protection against
G eviction ....... .
22. In paragraph 63, this Court noted the statement of
objects and reasons of the Public Premises Act, which are as
follows:-
H
•
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 509
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
"63 ......... "The court decisions, referred to above, A
have created serious difficulties for the government
inasmuch as the proceedings taken by the various Estate
Officers appointed under the Act either for the eviction of
persons who are in unauthorised occupation of public
premises or for the recovery of rent or damages from B
such persons stand null and void.... It has become
impossible for government to take expeditious action
even in flagrant cases of unauthorised occupation of
public premises and recovery of rent or damages for
such unauthorised occupation. It is, therefore, considered c
imperative to restore a speedy machinery for the eviction
of persons who are in unauthorised occupation of public
premises keeping in view at the same time the necessity
of complying with the provisions of the Constitution and
the judicial pronouncements, referred to above." 0
Thereafter, the Court observed:-
"63 ..... .. This shows that the Public Premises Act,
has been enacted to deal with the mischief of rampant
unauthorized occupation of public premises by providing E
a speedy machinery for the eviction of persons in
unauthorized occupation ....... "
(emphasis supplied)
23. In paragraph 64, this Court then noted that the Rent F
Control Act and the Public Premises Act operated in two
different areas, and the properties 'belonging to' the Central
Government, Government Companies or Corporations would
be excluded from the application of the Rent Control Act. The
Court observed to the following effect:- G
"64. It would thus appear that, while the Rent
Control Act is intended to deal with the general
relationship of landlords and tenants in respect of
premises other than government premises, the Public
H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A Premises Act is intended to deal with speedy recovery
of possession of premises of public nature, i.e. property
belonging to the Central Government, or companies in
which the Central Government has substantial interest or
corporations owned or controlled by the Central
B Government and certain corporations, institutions,
autonomous bodies and local authorities. The effect of
giving overriding effect to the provisions of the Public
Premises Act over the Rent Control Act, would be that
buildings belonging to companies, corporations and
c autonomous bodies referred to in Section 2(e) of the
Public Premises Act would be excluded from the ambit
ofthe Rent Control Act in the same manner as properties
belonging to the Central Government........ 11
(emphasis supplied)
D
Thereafter, the Court observed:-
11
The reason underlying the exclusion of
•••••
property belonging to the Government from the ambit of
the Rent Control Act, is that the Government while dealing
E
with the citizens in respect of property belonging to it
would not act for its own purpose as a private landlord but
would act in public interest ......11
(emphasis supplied)
F
24. Paragraph 66 of the judgment makes it clear that this
Court was concerned with a contractual tenancy and ruled out
a dual procedure for eviction. In that context it observed as
follows:- ·
G
"66 .......... This would mean that in order to evict a
person who is continuing in occupation after the expiration
or termination of his contractual tenancy in accordance with
law, two proceedings will have to be initiated. First, there
will be proceedings under Rent Control Act before the Rent
H
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 511
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
Controller followed by appeal before the Rent Control A
Tribunal and revision before the High Court. After these
proceedings have ended they would be followed by
proceedings under the Public Premises Act, before the
Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority. In other words,
persons in occupation of public premises would receive B
greater protection than tenants in premises owned by
private persons. It could not be the intention of Parliament
to confer this dual benefit on persons in occupation of
public premises."
It is relevant to note that, it is in this context that the Court C
rendered its decision in Ashoka Marketing, and upheld the
orders of eviction under Public Premises Act.
25. It was submitted by Mr. Nariman, that as can be seen
from above, the Court was concerned with the second part of D
the definition of "unauthorised occupation" under Section 2(g)
of the Public Premises Act, which is concerning expiry or
determination of the authority to occupy. He submitted that the
'determination of tenancy' is referable to Section 111 of the
Transfer of Property Act, and similarly the concept of expiry of E-
the authority to occupy. Paragraph 30 quoted above specifically
refers to the Transfer of Property Act. He submitted that the
latter part of this definition was indicating a reference to
contractual tenancy, and in this behalf referred to the above
referred paragraph 66 which also speaks about the contractual F
tenancy. His submission was that since the first part of the
definiti.on under Section 2(g) referred to a person who is
occupying the premises without any authority, it would exclude
a person who is occupying the premises under the authority of
law. In his submission, since the appellant was a deemed tenant G
under the state law, such a statutory tenant will hav,e to be
considered as protected by authority of law and cannot be
called a person in "unauthorised occupation". He referred to
the judgment of this Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao
Vs. Ashalata S. Guram reported in 1986 (3) SCR 866, which
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A held that the amendment brought about by section 15A was an
attempt to protect very large number of legitimate persons in
occupation. The judgment also made a distinction in the
position of a statutory tenant as against that of a contractual
tenant. In that judgment it is held that a statutory tenant is
B entitled to create a licence, whereas a contractual tenant can
create a sub-lease. However, the proposition canvassed by Mr.
Nariman would mean that a licensee protected by statute will
not be in an unauthorised occupation, but a contractual tenant
could be, since, his authority to occupy can be determined, and
c he would be in an unauthorised occupation thereafter. Thus, a
protected licensee would be placed on a pedestal higher than
that of a principal contractual tenant. In our view, this judgment
does not state so, nor can it lead us to accept any such
proposition as it would mean accepting an incongruous
situation.
0
From what date would the Public Premises Act apply to
the concerned premises?
26. The question that is required to be examined, however,
E is whether the tenants as well as licencees, who are protected
under the State Law, could be called unauthorised occupants
by applying the Public Premises Act to their premises as
'belonging' to a Government Company, and if so from what
date. As we have noted earlier, to initiate the eviction
F proceedings under this statute, the premises concerned have
to be public premises as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act.
Besides, as far as the present premises are concerned, it is
necessary that they must belong to a Government Company.
The definition of public premises will, therefore, have to be
G looked into, and it will have to be examined as to from what
date the premises can be said to be belonging to a
Government Company. Section 19 of the Public Premises Act,
1971 repeals the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1958. While repealing this predecessor Act,
Section 1(3) of the 1971 Act lays down that it shall be deemed
H
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 513
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
to have come into force on the 16th day of September, 1958 A
except sections 11 , 19 and 20 which shall come into force at
once (i.e. from 23.8.1971 ). Section 11 deals with offences and
penalties. Section 19 is the repealing Section as stated above,
and Section 20 is the section on validation of any judgment,
decree or order of any competent.court which might have been B
passed under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1958. The conjoint reading of Section 1(3) and
Section 2(e) defining Public Premises will be that although the
provisions with respect to eviction under the Act of 1971 are
deemed to have come into force from 16.9.1958, they will apply c
to the concerned premises only from the date when they
become public premises.
27. Thus, in the case of a company under the Companies
Act, 1956 as in the present case, it is necessary that the
premises must belong to or must be taken on lease by a D
company which has not less than 51 per cent paid up share
capital held by the Central Government. The submission of the
respondents is that the date on which the management of the
erstwhile Insurance Company was taken over i.e. 13.5.1971
would be the relevant date, and from that date the premises E
would be said to have become public premises. It was
submitted that after coming into force of the said Act, it was
not open to the erstwhile company to transfer or otherwise
dispose of any assets or create any charge, hypothecation,
lease or any encumbrance thereto without the previous approval F
of the persons specified by the Central Government. It was
contended that as a result, the provisions of Bombay Rent Act
will have to be held as not applicable to the said premises from
such date i.e. 13th May, 1971.
G
28. The submission of the respondent was accepted by
the High Court by relying upon an earlier judgment of a Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of M. Mohd vs.
Union of India reported in AIR 1982 Bombay 443. In para 22
thereof, the High Court held as follows:-
H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A "..... There is no doubt that the expression "belonging
to" does not mean the same thing as "owned by". The two
expressions have! two different connotations. The
expression "belonging to" will take within its sweep not
only ownership but also rights lesser than that of
B ownership."
It is relevant to note that the appellants therein were
government employees occupying premises allotted to them as
service premises. The premises were situated in privately
owned buildings, and taken on lease by the Government. The
C appellants had retired from their services, but were not vacating
the premises, and hence eviction orders were passed against
them under the Public Premises Act. The premises were
admittedly taken on lease, and were therefore premises
belonging to the Central Government. At the end of paragraph
D 21 of its judgment, the High Court in terms held as follows,
"Once the factum of lease is established, which has been done
in the present case, the authorities under the act get jurisdiction
to inquire under the act." The submission of the appellants
therein was that the premises could not be said to be belonging
E to the respondents, and therefore, not public premises. It is in
this context that the High Court held that the expression
'belonging to' will take within its sweep rights lesser than that
of ownership. The observations quoted above will have to be
read in that context. It is however, relevant to note what the
F Division Bench has thereafter added:-
"It must be remembered in this connection that the
expressions used in the statute are to be interpreted and
given meaning in the context in which they are used."
G It is material to note fhat it was not a case like the present one,
where the occupant has claimed protection under the State
Rent Control Law available to him prior to the Public Premises
. Act becoming applicable. The High Court had relied upon a
judgment of this Court in Mahomed Amir Ahmad Khan vs.
H Municipal Board of Sitapur reported in AIR 1965 SC 1923,
- DR SUHAS H_ POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 515
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
wherein this Court has observed:- A
"Though the word "belonging" no doubt is capable
of denoting as absolute title, is nevertheless not confined
to connoting that sense. "
This was a matter wherein the appellant was alleged to have B
disputed the title of the respondent landlord by contending that
the premises were belonging to the appellant. The Court noted
that all that he meant by using the word 'belonging' was that he
was a lessee, and nothing more. It was in this sense that this
Court observed as above while allowing his appeal. C
29. In the present matter we are concerned with the·
question, whether the respondents could resort to the provisions
of the Public Premises Act at a time when the merger of the
erstwhile insurance company into the first respondent was not D
complete. The question is whether taking over of the
management of the erstwhile company can confer upon the
respondent No. 1 the authority to claim that the premises belong
to it to initiate eviction proceedings under the Public Premises
Act, to the detriment of an occupant who is claiming protection E
under a welfare enactment passed by the State Legislature. At
this juncture we may profitably refer to the judgment of this Court
concerning another welfare enactment in Rashtriya Mill
Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur Vs. Model Mills, Nagpur and Anr.
reported in Al R 1984 SC 1813. The issue before the Court was
whether upon the appointment of an authorised controller under
F
Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1951 (IDR Act short) in respect of an industrial undertaking,
when it is run by him under the authority of a Department of the
Central Government, the employees of the undertaking would
get excluded from the application of the Payment of Bonus Act, G
1965, in view of the provision contained in Section 32(iv) of the
Bonus Act. The court made a distinction between the concept
of taking over of management and taking over of ownership.
Inasmuch as the taking over of the management did not result
_·into the Central Government becoming the owner of the textile H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A mills, the right of the workmen to receive bonus was not
extinguished. The Court held as follows:
"10. Thus the significant consequence that ensues on the
issue of a notified order appointing authorised controller
is to divert the management from the present managers
B
and to vest it in the authorised controller. Undoubtedly, the
heading of Chapter 111-A appears to be slightly misleading
when it says thatthe Central Government on the issue of
a notified order assumes direct management of the
industrial undertaking, in effect on the issuance of a notified
c order, only the management of the industrial undertaking
undergoes a change. This change of management does
not tantamount to either acquisition of the industrial
undertaking or a take over of its ownership because if that
was to be the intended effect of change of management,
D the Act would have been subjected to challenge of Article
31 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. One can say
confidently that was not intended to be the effect of
appointment of an authorised controller. The industrial
undertaking continues to be governed by the Companies
E Act or the Partnership Act or the relevant provisions of law:
applicable to a proprietary concern. The only change is the
removal of managers and appointment of another manager
and to safeguard his position restriction on the rights of
shareholders or partners or original proprietor. This is the
F. net effect of the appointment of an authorised controller by
a notified order."
(emphasis supplied)
A similar approach was adopted by the Court in Bhuri Nath
G and Ors. Vs. State of J&K and Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC
1711. Here the issue before the Court was with respect to the
constitutionality of the Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno
Devi Shrine Act, 1988 (XVI of 1988) which was made to
provide better management, administration and governance of
H Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine, its endowments, all temples,
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 517
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
and sum total of the properties, movable and immovable, A
attached or appurtenant to the Shrine. While addressing an
argument with respect to the violation of Article 31 of the
Constitution, the Court observed in para 29 as follows:
"29. . ......... The right to superintendence of 8
management, administration and governance of the
Shrine is not the property which the State acquires. It
carries with it no beneficial enjoyment of the property to
the State. The Act merely regulates the mr;magement,
administration and governance of the Shrine. It is not an C
extinguishment of the right. The appellants-Baridarans
were rendering pooja, a customary right which was
abolished and vested in the Board. The management,
administration and governance of the Shrine always
remained with the Dharamarth Trust from whom the Board
has taken over the same for proper administration, D
management and governance. In other words, the effect
of the enactment of the Act is that the affairs of the
functioning of the Shrine merely have got transferred from
Dharmarth Trust to the Board. The Act merely regulates
in that behalf; incidentally, the right to collect offerings E
enjoyed by the Baridarans by rendering service of pooja
has been put to an end under the Act. The State,
resultantly, has not acquired that right onto itself. ........ "
(emphasis supplied) F
30. As far as the present matter is concerned it is required
to be noted that the Principal Agencies floated by the
promoters of the erstwhile private Insurance Companies were
controlling their business. In the 'History of Insurance of India'
published by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority' G
(IRDA) on its official website on 12.07.2007 under Ref: IRDA/
GEN/06/2007 it is stated as follows:
"The Insurance Amendment Act of 1950 abolished
Principal Agencies. However, there were a large number H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A or insurance companies and the level of competition was
high. There were also a/legations of unfair trade practices.
The Government of India, therefore, decided to
nationalize insurance business."
Thus, as far as the erstwhile Insurance Company in the present
8
case is concerned, as an initial step, its management was
taken over by the Central Government w.e.f. 13.5.1971, and it
was entrusted with the custodian appointed by the Central
Government. It would definitely entail a right in the custodian to
take necessary steps to safeguard the property of the erstwhile
C insurance comparw. But it was a transitory arrangement. The
properties of the erstwhile insurance companies did not belong
to the Government Companies or the Government at that stage.
The Public Premises Act, undoubtedly provides a speedy
remedy to recover the premises from the unauthorised
D occupants. At the same time, we have also to note that in the
instant case the occupant is claiming a substantive right under
a yvelfare provision ·of the State Rent Control Act, which gave
him a protected status in view of the amendment to that Act.
The question is whether this authority of management bestowed
E on the Government Company can take in its sweep the right to
proceed against such protected tenants under the Public
Premises Act, by contending that the premises belonged to the
Government Company at that stage itself, and that the State
Rent Control Act no longer protected them. Considering that
F the Rent Control Act is a welfare enactment, and a further
protective provision has been made therein, can it be permitted
to be rendered otiose and made inapplicable .to premises
specifically sought to be covered thereunder, and defeated by
resorting to the provisions of the Public Premises Act? In the
G present case, it must also be noted that the appellant is seeking
a protection under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, which
has a non-obstante clause. The respondent No. 1 is
undoubtedly not without a remedy, and it can proceed to evict
an unauthorised occupant under the Rent Control Act, if an
H occasion arises. It can certainly resort thereto until the
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 519
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
managerial right fructifies into a right of ownership. However A
by enforcing a speedier remedy, a welfare provision cannot be
rendered nugatory. The provisions of the two enactments will
have to be read harmoniously to permit the operation and co-
existence of both of them to the extent it can be done.
Therefore, the term 'belonging to' as occurring in the definition B
of Public Premises in Section 2(e) will have to be interpreted
meaningfully to imply only the premises owned by or taken on
lease by the Government Company. at the relevant time. In the
facts of this case what we find is that '.the appellant had the status
of a deemed tenant under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 prior to c
the concerned premises 'belonging to a Government Company'
· and becoming public premises. If at all he had to be evicted, it
was necessary to follow the due process of law which would
mean the process as available under the Bombay Rent Act or
its successor Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and not the
0
one which is provided under the provisions of the Pu.blic
Premises Act.
Can the Public Premises Act be given retrospective
effect?
31. There is another aspect of the matter. Mr. Raval,
learned senior counsel .for the respondents has contended that
the appellant's submission that he was protected under the
Bombay Rent Act, and that protection has· been continued
under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, is not available F
before the Estate Officer. The question, therefore, comes to our
mind as to what happens to the rights of the appellant made
available to him under the State Act at a time when the
erstwhile company had not merged in the first respondent
Government Company? Can it be said that he was occupying G
the premises without the authority for such occupation? Can it
be said that with the application of the Public Premises Act to
the premises occupied by the appellant, those rights get
extinguished? It has been laid down by this Court time and again
that if there are rights created in favour of any person, whether
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A they are property rights or rights arising from a transaction in
the nature of a contract, and particularly if they are protected
under a statute, and if they are to be taken away by any
1
legislauo'n; that legislation will have to say so specifically by
giving it a retrospective effect. This is because prima facie
B every legislation is prospective (see para 7 of the Constitution
Benth judgment in Janardan Reddy Vs. The State reported
in AIR 1951 SC 124). In the instant case, the appellant was
undoubtedly protected as a 'deemed tenant' under Section 15A
of the Bombay Rent Act, prior to the merger of the erstwhile
C insurance'company with a Government Company, and he could
be removed only by following the procedure available under the
Bombay Rent Act. A 'deemed tenant' under the Bombay Rent
Act, continued to be protected under the succeeding Act, in
view of the definition of a 'tenant' under Section 7(15)(a)(ii) of
the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Thus, as far as the ·
0
tenants of the premises which are not covered under the Public
Premises Act are concerned, those tenants who were deemed
r. tenants under the Bombay Rent Act continued to have their
protection ·under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Should the coverage of their premises under the Public
, ,. E Premises Act make a difference to the tenants or occupants
of such premises, and if so, from which date?
32. It has been laid down by this Court through a number
of judgments rendered over the years, that a legislation is not
·F be given a retrospective effect unless specifically provided for,
and not beyond the period that is provided therein. Thus, a
Constitution Bench held in Garkiapati Veeraya Vs. N. Subbiah
Chaudhry reported in AIR 1957 SC 540 that in the absence
of anything in the enactment to show that it is to be
G retrospective, it cannot be so constructed, as to have the effect
of altering the law applicable to a claim in litigation at the time
when the act was passed. In that matter, the Court was
concerned with the issue as to whether the appellant's right to
file an appeal continued to be available to him for filing an
H appeal to the Andhra Pradesh High Court after it was created
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 521
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
from the erstwhile Madras High Court. The Constitution Bench A
held that the right very much survived, and the vested right of
appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if
it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not
otherwise.
B
33. Similarly, in Mahadeolal Kanodia Vs. The
Administrator General of West Bengal reported in AIR 1960
SC 936, this Court was concerned with the retrospectivity of
law passed by the West Bengal legislature concerning the
rights of tenants and in paragraph 8 of the judgment the Court C
held that:-
"8. The principles that have to be applied for
interpretation of statutory provisions of this nature are
well-established. The first of these is that"'" statutory
provisions creating substantive rights or taking away D
substantive rights are ordinarily prospectivff; they are
retrospectiveI only if by express words or by.necessary
implication'. ..... "
34. In Amireddi Raja Gopala Rao Vs. Amireddi E
Sitharamamma reported in AIR 1965 SC 1970, a Constitution
bench was concerned with the issue as to whether the rights · ·
of maintenance of illegitimate sons of a sudra as available
under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law was affected by
introduction of Sections 4, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoption and
F
Maintenance Act, 1956. The Court held that they were not, and
observed in paragraph 7 as follows:-
"A statue has to be interpreted, if possible so as to
respect vested rights, and if the words are open to another
construction, such a construction should never be adopted." G
The same has been the view taken by a bench of three Judges
of this Court in J.P. Jani, Income Tax Officer, Circle IV, Ward
G, Ahmedabad Vs. lnduprasad Devshanker Bhatt reported in
AIR 1969 SC 778 in the context of a provision of the Income
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A Tax Act, 1961, in the matter of reopening of assessment orders.
In that matter the Court was concerned with the issue as to
whether the Income Tax Officer could re-open the assessment
under Section 297(2) (d) (ii) and 148 of the Income Tax Act,
1961, although the right to re-open was barred by that time
B under the earlier Income Tax Act, 1922. This Court held that the
same was impermissible and observed in paragraph 5 as
follows:-
"5...... The reason is that such a construction of
Section 297 (2) (d) (ii) would be tantamount to giving of
c retrospective operation to that section which is not
warranted either by the express language of the section
or by necessary implication. The principle is based on
the we/I-known rule of interpretation that unless the terms
of the statute expressly so provide or unless there is a
D necessary implication, retrospective operation should not
be given to the statute so as to affect, alter or destroy any
right already acquired or to revive any remedy already
lost by_ efflux of time."
~;
E 35. In Arjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR
1970 SC 703, this court was concerned with the issue of date
of application of Section 32KK added into the Pepsu Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. This Court held in paragraph
4 thereof as follows:-
F "4. It is a well-settled rule of construction that no
provision in a statute should be given retrospective effect
unless the legislature by express terms or by necessary
implication has made it retrospective and that where a
provision is made retrospective, care should be taken
G not to extend its retrospective effect beyond what was
intended. "
36. In Ex-Capt., K. C. Argra Vs. State of Haryana reported
in 1984 (3) sec 281, this Court was concerned with a service
H matter and with the issue as to whether a11 amendment in the
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 523
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
law could take away the vested rights with retrospective effect. A
The Court held that such an amendment would be invalid if it
.is violative of the present acquired or accrued fundamental
'rights of the affected persons.
37. In the case of K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kera/a B
reported in AIR 1995 SC 1012, a Constitution Bench of this
Court was concerned with the retrospective effect of Section
23(1A) introduced in the Land Acquisition Act. While dealing
with this provision, this Court has observed as follows:-
"44. A statute dealing with substantive rights differs C
from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or
is declaratory in nature inasmuch as while a statute
dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective
unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made
to have retrospective effect, a statute concerned mainly D
with matters of procedure or evidence or which is
declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective
unless there is a clear indication that such was not the
intention of the legislature. A statute is regarded
retrospective if it operates on cases or facts coming into E
existence before its commencement in the sense that it
affects, even if for the future only, the character or
consequences of transactions previously entered into or
of other past conduct. By virtue of the presumption
against retrospective applicability of laws dealing with F
substantive rights transactions are neither invalidated by
reason of their failure to comply with formal requirements
subsequently imposed, nor open to attack under powers
of avoidance subsequently conferred. They are also not
rendered valid by subsequent re_laxations of the Jaw,
G
whether relating to form or to substance. Similarly,
provisions in which a contrary intention does not appear
neither impose new liabilities in respect of events taking
place before their commencement, nor relieve persons
from liabilities then existing, and the view that existing
H
524 SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A obligations were not intended tv be affected has been
taken in varying degrees even of provisions expressly
prohibiting proceedings. (See: Halsbury's Laws of
England, 4th Edn. Vol. 44, paras 921, 922, 925 and
926).If
B
38. In the case of Gajraj Singh Vs. State Transport
Appellate Tribunal reported in AIR 1997 SC 412, the Court was
concerned with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and
repealing of some of its provisions. In para 30 referring to
C Southerland on Statutory Construction (3rd Edition) Vol.I, the
Court quoted the following observations:-
"30 ...... Effect on vested rights
Under common law principles of construction and
D interpretation the repeal of a statute or the abrogation of
a common law principle operates to divest all the rights
accruing under the repealed statute or the abrogated
common law, and to halt all proceedings not concluded
prior to the repeal. However, a right which has become
vested is not dependent upon the common law or the
E
statute under which it was acquired for its assertion, but
has an independent existence. Consequently, the repeal
of the statute or the abrogation of the common law from
which it originated does not efface a vested right, but it
remains enforceable without regard to the repeal.
F
In order to become vested, the right must be a contract
right, a property right, or a right arising from a transaction
in the nature of a contract which has become perfected
to the degree that the continued existence of the statute
G cannot further enhance its acquisition ....... "
39. Having noted the aforesaid observations, it is very
clear that in the facts of the present case, the appellant's status
as a deemed tenant was accepted under the state enactment,
H and therefore he could not be said to be in "unauthorised
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 525
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
occupation". His right granted by the state enactment cannot A
be destroyed by giving any retrospective application to the
provisions of Public Premises Act, since there is no such
express provision in the statute, nor is it warranted by any
implication. In fact his premises would not come within the ambit
of the Public Premises Act, until they belonged to the B
respondent No. 1, i.e until 1.1.1974. The corollary is that if the
respondent No. 1 wanted to evict the appellant, the remedy was
to resort to the procedure available under the Bombay Rent Act
or its succes.sor Maharashtra Rent Control Act, by approaching
the forum thereunder, and not by resorting to the provisions of c
the Public Premises Act.
When are the provisions of Public Premises Act to be
resorted to?
40. In the context of the present controversy, we must refer D
to one more aspect. As we have noted earlier in paragraph 63
of Ashoka Marketing, the Constitution Bench has referred to
the objects and reasons behind the Public Premises Act
wherein it is stated that it has become impossible for the
Government to take expeditious action even in 'flagrant cases E
of unauthorised occupation' of public premises. The Court has
thereafter observed in that very paragraph that the Public
Premises Act is enacted to deal with mischief of 'rampant
unauthorised occupation' of public premises.
F
41. It is relevant to note that there has been a criticism of
the use of the powers under the Public Premises Act, and the
manner in which they are used in an arbitrary way to evict the
genuine tenants from the public premises causing serious
hardships to them. The Central Government itself has therefore,
issued the guidelines to prevent such arbitrary use of these G
powers. These guidelines were issued vide Resclution No.
21012/1/2000-Pol.1, dated 30th May, 2002, published in the
Gazette of India, Part I, Sec.1 dated 8th June, 2002. They read
as follows:-
H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A "GUIDELINES TO PREVENT ARBITRARY USE OF
POWERS TO EVICT GENUINE TENANTS FROM
PUBLIC PREMISES UNDER THE CONTROL OF
PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS I FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS
B
1. The question of notification of guidelines to prevent
arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine tenants from public
premises under the control of Public Sector Undertakings/
financial institutions has been under consideration of the
Government for some time past.
c
2. To prevent arbitrary use of powers to evict genuine
tenants from public premises and to limit the use of
powers by the Estate Officers appointed under section 3
of the PP(E) Act, 1971, it has been decided by
D Government to lay down the following guidelines:
(i) The provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 [(P.P.(E) Act, 1971]
should be used primarily to evict totally unauthorised
occupants of the premises of public authorities or
subletees, or employees who have ceased to be in their
service and thus ineligible for occupation of the premises.
(ii) The provisions of the P.P. (E) Act, 1971 should not be
resorted to either with a commercial motive or to secure
·F vacant possession of the premises in order to
accommodate their own employees, where the premises
were in occupation of _the original tenants to whom the
premises were let either by the public authorities or the
persons from whom the premises were acquired.
G
(iii) A person in occupation of any premises should not be
treated or declared to be an unauthorised occupant merely
on service of notice of termination of tenancy, but the fact
of unauthorized occupation shall be decided by following
the due procedure of law. Further, the contractual
H
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 527
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
agreement shall not be wound up by taking advantage of A
the provisions of the P.P.(E) Act, 1971. At the same time,
it will be open to the public authority to secure periodic
revision of rent in terms of the provisions of the Rent
Control Act in each State or to move under genuine
grounds under the Rent Control Act for resuming B
possession. In other words, the public authorities would
have rights similar to private landlords under the Rent
Control Act in dealing with genuine legal tenants.
(iv) It is necessary to give no room for allegations that
evictions were selectively resorted to for the purpose of C
securing an unwarranted increase in rent, or that a change
in tenancy was permitted in order to benefit particular
individuals or institutions. In order to avoid such
i111Putations or abuse of discretionary powers, the release
of premises or change of tenancy should be decided at D
the level of Board of Directors of Public Sector
Undertakings.
(v) All the public Undertakings should immediately review
all pending cases before the Estate Officer or Courts with E
reference to these guidelines, and withdraw eviction
proceedings against genuine tenants on grounds
otherwise than as provided under these guidelines. The
provisions under the P.P. (E) Act, 1971 should be used
henceforth only in accordance with these guidelines. F
3. These orders take immediate effect."
42. Thus as can be seen from these guidelines, it is
emphasized in Clause 2(i) thereof, that the Act was meant to
evict (a) totally unauthorised occupants of the public premises G
or subletees, or (b) employees who have ceased to be in their
service, and were ineligible to occupy the premises. In Clause
2(ii), it is emphasized that the provisions should not be resorted
to (a) either with a commercial motive, or (b) to secure vacant
possession of the premises in order to accommodate their own· H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 2 S.C.R.
A employees, where the premises were in occupation of the
original tenants to whom the premises were let out (i) either by
the public authorities, or (ii) by persons from whom the
premises were acquired, indicating thereby the predecessors
of the public authorities. Clause 2 (iii) of these guidelines is very
B important. It states on the one hand that it will be open for the
public authority to secure periodic revision of ient in terms of
~the provision of the Rent Control Act in each state, and to move
urider genuine grounds under the Rent control Act for resuming
possession. This Clause on the other hand states that the public
c authorities would have rights similar to private landlords under
the Rent Control Act in dealing with genuine legal tenants. This
clause in a way indicates that for resuming possession in
certain situations, where the tenants are protected under the
State Rent Control Act prior to the Public Premises Act
becoming applicable, the public authorities will have to move
0
under the Rent Control Acts on the grounds which are available
to the private landlords. Clause 2(iv) seeks to prevent
imputations or abuse of discretionary powers in this behalf by
stating that there should be no room for allegation that evictions
were selectively resorted for the purpose of securing an ·
E unwarranted increase in rent or change in tenancy to benefit
particular individuals or institutions. It, therefore, states that the
release of premises or change of tenancy should be decided
at the level of Board of Directors of Public Sector Undertakings.
Clause 2(v) goes further ahead and instructs all public
F undertakings that they should review all pending cases before
the Estate Officer or Courts with reference to these guidelines,
and withdraw the proceedings against genuine tenants on
grounds otherwise than as provided under the guidelines.
G 43. The instructions contained in this Resolution are
undoubtedly guidelines, and are advisory in character and do
not confer any rights on the tenants as held in para 23 of New
Insurance Assurance Company Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia
reported in 2008 (3) sec 279. At the same time, the intention
H behind the guidelines cannot be ignored by the Public
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 529
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
Undertakings which are expected to follow the same. When it A
comes to the interpretation of the provisions of the statute, the
guidelines have been referred herein for the limited purpose
of indicating the intention in making the statutory provision,
since the guidelines are issued to effectuate the statutory
provision. The guidelines do throw some light on the intention B
behind the statute. The guidelines are issued with good intention
to stop arbitrary use of the powers under the Public Premises
Act. The powers are given to act for specified reasons, and are
expected to be used only in justified circumstances and not
otherwise. C
The overall consequence
44. In Ashoka Marketing (supra), this Court was concerned
with the premises of two Nationalised Banks and the Life
Insurance Corporation. As far as Life Insurance Corporation is D
concerned, the life insurance business was nationalised under
the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. Therefore, as far as
the premises of UC are concerned, they will come under the
ambit of the Public Premises Act from 16.9.1958, i.e the date
from which the Act is brought into force. As far as Nationalised E
Banks are concerned, their nationalization is governed by The
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970, and therefore, the application of Public Premises
Act to the premises of the Nationalised Banks will be from the
. particular date in the year 1970 or thereafter. For any premises F
to become public premises, the relevant date will be 16.9.1958
or whichever is the later date on which the concerned premises
become the public premises as belonging to or taken on lease
by UC or the Nationalised Banks or the concerned General
Insurance Companies like the first respondent. All those G
persons falling within the definition of a tenant occupying the
premises prior thereto will not come under the ambit of the
Public Premises Act and cannot therefore, be said to be
persons in "unauthorised occupation". Whatever rights such
prior tenants, members of their families or heirs of such tenants
H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A or deemed tenants or all of those who fall within the definition
of a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act have, are continued
under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. If possession
of their premises is required, that will have to be resorted to
by taking steps under the Bombay Rent Act or Maharashtra
B Rent Control Act, 1999. If person concerned has come in
occupation subsequent to such date, then of course the Public
Rremises Act, 1971 will apply.
45. It is true that Section 15 of the Public Premises Act
creates a bar of jurisdiction to entertain suits or proceedings
C in respect of eviction of any person in an unauthorised
occupation. However, as far as the relationship between the
respondent No. 1, the other General Insurance Companies,
LIC, Nationalised Banks and such other Government
Companies or Corporations, on the one hand and their
D occupants/licencees/tenants on the other hand is concerned,
. such persons who are in occupation prior to the premises
belonging to or taken on lease by such entities, will continue to
be governed by the State Rent Control Act for all purposes. The
Public Premises Act will apply only to those who come in such
E occupation after such date. Thus, there is no occasion to have
a dual procedure which is ruled out in paragraph 66 of Ashoka
Marketing. We must remember that the occupants of these
properties were earlier tenants of the erstwhile Insurance
Companies which were the private landlords. They have not
F chosen to be the tenants of the Government Companies. Their
status as occupants of the Public Insurance Companies has
been thrust upon them by the Public Premises Act.
46. This Court has noted in Banatwala and Co. Vs. UC
reported in 2011 (13) SCC 446 that the Public Premises Act,
G 1971 is concerned with eviction of unauthorised occupants and
. recovery of arrears of rent or damages for such unauthorised
occupation, and incidental matters specified under the act. As
far as the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is concerned, this Court
noted in paragraph 25 of that judgment that as per the preamble
H of the said Act, it is an Act relating to five subjects, namely (i)
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 531
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
control of rent, (ii) repairs of certain premises, (iii) eviction, (iv) A
encouraging the construction of new houses by assuring fair
return of investment by the landlord, and (v) matters connected
with the purposes mentioned above. In that matter, the Court
was concerned with the issue of fixation of standard rent and
restoration and maintenance of essential supplies and services B
by the landlord. It was held that these two subjects were not
covered under the Public Premises Act, and intact were
covered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Operative
para 99(c) of the judgment therefore specifically held as
follows:- c
"99 (c) The provisions of the Maharashtra Rent
control Act, 1999 shall govern the relationship between
the public undertakings and their occupants to the extent
this Act covers the other aspects of the relationship
between the landlord and tenants, not covered under the D
Public Premises Act, 1971."
47. A judgment of a bench of three Judges of this Court in
Mis Jain Ink Manufacturing Company v. L. I. C reported in
(1980) 4 sec 435 was relied upon by Mr. Raval. In this matter E
also a plea was raised on behalf of the appellant tenant for
1 being covered under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which
came to be repelled. Mr. Raval stressed upon the observations
in Para 5 of the judgment to the effect that Section 2(g) merely
requires occupation of any public premises to initiate the action. F
Mr. Nariman on the other hand pointed out that in the earlier
part of the very paragraph the Court had observed, although
after referring to the provision of Punjab Public Premises and
Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act 1959 that if the entry
into possession had taken place prior to the passing of the act, G
then obviously the occupant would not be an unauthorized
occupant. That apart, Mr. Nariman submitted that the judgment
was essentially on the second part of Section 2(g) defining
. 'unauthorised occupation'. It is, however, material to note that
in that case the premises were owned by LIC from 19.7.1958,
H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A i.e. prior to the Delhi Rent Control Act becoming applicable from
9.2.1959. Besides, the issue of protection under a welfare
legislation being available to the tenant prior to the premises
becoming public premises, and the issue of retrospectivity was
not under consideration before the Court. The observations of
B the Court in that matter will have to be understood in that
context.
48. As far as the eviction of unauthorised occupants from
public premises is concerned, undoubtedly it is covered under
the Public Premises Act, but it is so covered from 16.9.1958,
C or from the later date when the concerned premises become
public premises by virtue of the concerned premises vesting
into a Government company or a corporation like LIC or the
Nationalised Banks or the General Insurance Companies like
the respondent no.1. Thus there are two categories of
D occupants of these public corporations who get excluded from
the coverage of the Act itself. Firstly, those who. are in
occupation since prior to 16.9.1958, i.e. prior to the Act
becoming applicable, are clearly outside the coverage of the
Act. Secondly, those who come in occupation, thereafter, but
E prior to the date of the concerned premises belonging to a
Government Corporation or a Company, and are covered
under a protective provision of the State Rent Act, like the
appellant herein, also get excluded. Until such date, the
Bombay Rent Act and its successor Maharashtra Rent Control
F Act will continue to govern the relationship between the
occupants of such premises on the one hand, and such.
government companies and corporations on the other. Hence,
with respect to such occupants it will not be open to such
companies or corporations to issue notices, and to proceed
G against such occupants under the Public Premises Act, and
such proceedings will be void and illegal. Similarly, it v:ill be
open for such occupants of these premises to seek declaration
of their status, and other rights such as transmission of the
tenancy to the legal heirs etc. under the Bombay Rent Act or
H its successor Maharashtra Rent Control Act, and also to seek
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 533
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
protective reliefs in the nature of injunctions against unjustified A
actions or orders of eviction if so passed, by approaching the
forum provided under the State Act which alone will have the
jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings.
49. Learned senior counsel for the respondents Mr. Raval B
submitted that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in
Ashoka Marketing had clarified the legal position with respect
to the relationship between the Public Premises Act and the
Rent Control Act. However, as noted above, the issue
concerning retrospective application of the Public Premises Act C
was not placed for the consideration of the Court, and naturally
it has not beEm gone into it. It was submitted by Mr. Raval that
for maintenance of judicial discipline this bench ought to refer
the issue involved in the present matter to a bench of three
Judges, and thereafter that bench should refer it to a bench of
five Judges. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the D
case of Pradip Chandra Parija Vs. Pramod Chandra reported
in 2002 (1) SCC 1 in this behalf. He also referred to a judgment
of this Court in Sundarjas Kanya/a/ Bhatija Vs. Collector,
Thane, Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 1989 (3) SCC 396
and particularly paragraph 18 thereof for that purpose. What is E
however, material to note is that this paragraph also permits
discretion to be exercised when there is no declared position
in law. The Bombay Rent Act exempted from its application
only the premises belonging to the government or a local
authority. The premises belonging to the Government F
Companies or Statutory Corporations were however covered
under the Bombay Rent Act. This position was altered from
16.9.1958 when the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupation) Act, 1958 came in force which applied thereafter
to the Government Companies and Statutory Corporations, and G
that position has been reiterated under the Public Premises Act
of 1971 which replaced the 1958 Act. Under these Acts of 1958
and 1971, the Premises belonging to the Government
Companies or Statutory Corporations are declared to be Public
Premises. Thus, the Parliament took away these premises from H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R.
A the coverage of the Bombay Rent Act under Article 254(1) of
the Constitution of India. This was, however, in the matter of the
subjects covered under the Public Premises Act, viz. eviction
of unauthorised occupan'ts and recovery of arrears of rent etc.
as stated above. Thereafter, if the State Legislature wanted to
B cover these subjects viz. a viz. the premises of the Government
Companies and Public Corporations under the Maharashtra
Rent Control Act, 1999, it had to specifically state that
notwithstanding anything in the Public Premises Act of 1971,
the Government Companies and Public Corporations would be
c covered under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. If that
was so done, and if the President was to give assent to such
a legislation, then the Government Companies and Public
Corporation would have continued to be covered under the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in view of the provision of
- Article 254(2). That has not happened. Thus, the Government
0
Companies and Public Corporations are taken out of the
coverage of the Bombay Rent Act, and they are covered under
Public Premises Act, 1971, though from the date specified
therein i.e. 16.9.1958. After that date, the Government
E Companies and Public Corporations will be entitled to claim
the application of the Public Premises Act, 1971 (and not of
the Bombay Rent Act or its successor Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999), but from the date on which premises belong to
these companies or corporations and with respect to the
subjects specified under the Public Premises Act. In that also
F the public companies and corporations ar€ expected to follow
the earlier mentioned guidelines.
50. We have not for a moment taken any position different
from the propositions in Ashoka Marketing. We are infact in
G agreement therewith, and we are not accepting the submission
of Mr. Nariman, that only contractual tenancies were sought to
be covered under that judgment, and not statutory tenancies.
Tenancies of both kinds will be covered by that judgment, and
they will be covered under the Public Premises Act for the
H subjects specified therein. The only issue is with effect from
DR. SUHAS H. POPHALE v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. 535
LTD. AND ITS ESTATE OFFICER [H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
which date. That aspect was not canvassed at all before the A
Constitution Bench, and that is the only aspect which is being
clarified by this judgment. We are only clarifying that the
application of the Public Premises Act will be only from
16.9.1958, or from such later date when concerned premises
become Public Premises on the concerned landlord becoming B
a Government Company or Public Corporation. When the law
laid down by the different Benches of this Court including by
the Constitution Benches on retrospectivity is so clear, and so
are the provisions of the Public Premises Act, there is no
_occasion for this Court to take any other view. When this c
judgment is only clarifying and advancing the proposition laid
. down in Ashoka Marketing, there is no reason for us to accept
the objections raised by Mr. Raval, that the issues raised in this
matter should not be decided by this bench but ought to be
referred to a larger bench.
D
51. In this context we may note that since the issue of
retrospective application of the Public Premises Act, to
tenancies entered into before 16.9.1958, or before the property
in question becoming a public premises, was neither
· canvassed nor considered by the bench in Ashoka Marketing E
(supra), the decision doe§not, in any way, prevent this Bench
from clarifying. the law· regarding the same. This follows from
the judgment of the Supreme Court. in State of Haryana Vs.
Ranbir @ Rana reported in (2006) 5 SCC 167 wherein it was
held that a decision, it is well-settled, is an authority for what it F
decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. The
following observations of this court from paragraph 39 of
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mis. Sun Engineering
Works (P.) Ltd. reported in AIR1993 SC 43 are also pertinent:
G
"The judgment must be read as a whole and the
observations from the judgment have to be considered
in the light of the questions which were before this Court.
A decision of this Court takes its colour from the
questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and
H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 2 S.C.R.
A while applying the decision to a later case, the coutts
must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down
by the decision of this Coult and not to pick out words or
sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context
of the questions under consideration by this Court, to i
B support their reasonings.
(emphasis supplied)
It is clear from a reading of the very first paragraph of Ashoka
Marketing that the question before it was 'whether the
C provisions of the Public Premises Act would ove~ride the
provisions of the Rent Control Act in relation to premises which
fall within the ambit of both the enactments.' The Court
answered this in the affirmative, and we respectfully agree with
the same. However, Ashoka Marketing (supra) can not be said
D to be an authority on the retrospective application of the Public
Premises Act, or where the premises fall within the ambit of
only one act, as that issue was not before the Court.
52. For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal
and set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated
E 7.6.2010 rendered by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition
No. 2473 of 1996. The said Writ Petition shall stand allowed,
and the judgment and order dated 17 .1.1996 passed by the
City Civil Court, Mumbai, as well as the eviction order dated
-28.5.1993 passed by the respondent No. 2 against the
F appellant will stand set aside. The proceedings for eviction from
premises, and for recovery of rent and damages initiated by
the first respondent against the appellant under the Public
Premises Act, 1971, are held to be bad in law, and shall
therefore stand dismissed. We however, make it clear, that in
G case the respondents intend to take any steps for that purpose,
it will be open to them to resort to the remedy available under
the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, provided they make
out a case therefor. The parties will bear their own costs.
H R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "eviction"Sign in to search