Holding

Section 12(2) of the West Bengal Government Premises Tenancy Regulation Act, 1976, expressly excludes the application of the 1962 Act, so eviction of unauthorized occupants of the premises must be pursued under the 1976 Act.

Summary

The State of West Bengal sought to evict Mis Banalata Investment Pvt. Ltd. and others from premises it claimed as government property. The Calcutta High Court held that the eviction could only be effected under the West Bengal (Public Land Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 and not under the West Bengal Government Premises Tenancy Regulation Act, 1976. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Section 12(2) of the 1976 Act, which expressly states that the 1962 Act shall not apply to premises covered by the 1976 Act. The Court held that the 1976 Act overrides the 1962 Act, making eviction proceedings under the 1976 Act mandatory. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the respondents were ordered to vacate the premises by 31 October 2001, subject to filing an undertaking.

Issues considered

Whether eviction of unauthorized occupants of government premises is governed by the West Bengal Government Premises Tenancy Regulation Act, 1976 or the West Bengal (Public Land Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962.
Whether Section 12(2) of the 1976 Act bars the application of the 1962 Act to premises to which the 1976 Act applies.
Whether the High Court erred in holding that eviction could be pursued under the 1962 Act.

Legislation cited

West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976s. 12(2), s. 3, s. 4, s. 6, s. 6A
West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962

Subjects

evictiongovernment premisesunauthorised occupantsstatutory interpretationoverriding legislationtenancyWest Bengal

Judgment

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. A
v.
MIS BANALATA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

APRIL 30, 2001

[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] B

~st Bengal Government Premises Tenancy Regulation Act, 1976 (Act
of 1976)-Sections 6A, 12(2)-West Bengal (Public Land Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (Act of 1962)-Stq/e Government evicted
the respondents from the premises under the provisions of1he Act of 1976- C
High Court held that the eviction is possible only under the provisions of the
Act of 1962 and not under the Act of 1976-Held, the provisions of the Act
of 1976 is applicable for eviction.

Itespondents were in possession of disputed premises in Calcutta. D
Appellant-State government took over possession of the premises under the
provisions of the West Bengal Government Premises Tenancy Regulation Act,
1976 (Act of 1976). The respondents filed Writ Petitions before High Court
challenging the possession of the premises by the appellant as arbitrary and
without process of law. The High Court held that the respondents were tenants
of the owners of the premises and not of the State Government and therefore E
the provisions of the Act of 1976 cannot be applied by the State Government
for taking over possession of the p1·emises from the respondents. The High
Court, however, held that the possession of the premises by the respondents
cannot be disturbed without taking recourse to the provisions of the West
Bengal (Public Land E\iction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1962 (Act of F
1962). Hence this appeal by the State Government

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. In sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the West Bengal
Government Premises Tenancy Regulation act, 1976 (Act of 1976), the G
legislature has clearly laid down that the West Bengal (Public Land Eviction
of Unauthorised Occu1>ants) Act, 1962 (Act of 1962) shall not be made
applicable to any premises to which this Act of 1976 applies. Therefore any
1>roceeding for eviction of unauthorised occupants of premises in question
has to be initiated only under the Act of 1976. The judgment of the ffigh Court H
241
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) 3 S.C.R.

A is in conflict with the express statutory provision in Section 12(2) of the Act ·
of 1976. Therefore the High Court clearly erred in holding that the proceeding
under the Act of 1976 was not maintainable and that proceeding for eviction,
if any, may be taken under the Act of 1962. [245-C-D]

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3426-28
of 1995.

From the Judbnent and Order dated 12.1. 94 of the Calcutta Bigh Court
in F.M.A.T. Nos. 920-922of1991.

c Bhattacharjee
Tapas ray, Avijit Bhattacherjee, Atanu Saikia and Ms. Madhumita
•
for the Appellants.

S.B. Upadhaya and Sujit K. Singh for the Respondents in C.A. No. 3427-
3428195.
-
"
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BANERJEE, J. The State of West Bengal is in appeal against the
Judgment and Order of the Calcutta High Court recording a finding that the ~·
dispossession of the Writ Petitioner/Respondents herein on 19th March, 1991
E was arbitrary and without process of law. The High Court f111ther directed in
' its Order that the State authorities will not in any way disturb the possession
of the Writ Petitioners without taking recourse to the provision of the West
Bengal (Public Land Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act 1962 or such
other provision as may be available to them..

F The contextual facts depict that the Writ Petitioners were in possession
of three out houses in premises No. 62 Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Calcutta. The
High Court while dealing with the facts came to the conclusion, however, that
possessory ·right ought not to prevent the vesting of the entire property in
the State Government and thus eame to a finding that the entire premises
No.62. Syed Amir Ali Avenue Calcutta came to be vested on to the State
.G
Government on and from 5th December, 1983. The High Court's finding on
this score remains un:challenged-as such we need not delve into its factual
acceptability.
. '

· On the further factual score, the High Court observed that whether the
H Writ Petitioners/respondents herein can at all be said to be tenants in respect
STATE v. BANALATA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. [BANERJEE, J.] 243

of the premises under their occupation under heirs of S.K. Ghose, since A
diseased or under VC. Sood as claimed by the Writ Petitioners could not be
of any concern of the Court in the appeal before it, but as consequence of
....- -~
the State Government's acquiring of title to the premises, continued occupation
without the sanction of the later was unauthorised. This aspect of the factual
finding also has not been challenged as such we need not dilate on this score
as well. B

The High Court however, even though as noticed above came to the
conclusion that the above noted entire pn:mises came to vest in the State
Government on and from 5th December, 1983, but recorded a finding that
~
taking recourse to the provisions of the West Bengal Government Premises c
Tenancy Regulation Act, 1976, for the purpose of obtaining possession of the
premises in question does not and can not arise. The High Court as a matter ' '
of fact observed that it is no body's case that the Writ Petitioners were
inducted as tenants by and on behalf of the State Government and as such
the provisions of 1976 Act can not be said to be extended to the petitioners
who claimed to be the tenants not of the State Government, but of the owners D
of the property and it is on the wake of the aforesaid finding that the High
Court denounced invocation of the powers under Section 6(A) of the 1976
Act and directed not to disturb the possession of the Writ Petitioners in the
-¥:.
premises in question. It may be noticed herein that the above noted directions
concerning non-disturbance however was subject to taking recourse to the E
provisions of West Bengal Public Land (Eviction ofun-authorised Occupants)
Act, 1962 or such other legal possession as may be available to them. In short
thus, the High Court's finding is to the effect that whereas the provisions of
1976 Act cannot be made applicable in the facts and the matter under
consideration, but leave was granted to take recourse to the Act of 1962.
F,
Before proceeding further, be it noted that 'Government premises' stands
defined in the Act of 1976 as meaning "any premises, which is owned by the
State Government or by Government undertaking, but does not include .... "

Whereas, Section 3 of the Act of 1976 deals with the termination of
tenancy, section 4 provides for restoration of possession. This statute provides
G
in section 4 that upon termination of tenancy under any of the provisions of
Section 3, the tenant has to restore vacant possession forthwith of the
premises occupied by him in favour of the prescribed authority, but in the
.-..., event, the tenant fails to restore the possession of the premises, the prescribed
authority may take such step or steps or use such force as may necessary H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001];3 S.C.R.

A to take possession of the premises and may also enter into such premises for
the aforesaid purpose.

Further, the statute whereas in Section 6 provides penalty for failure to
deposit rent in time, Section 6(A) provides as below:-

B "6A. Eviction of unallthorised occupants and penalfy for such
occupation. Where any person not being a tenant occupies, or remains
in occupation, of any Government premises without the written order
of the prescribed authority, -

(a) the prescribed authority, or any officer authorised by it in this y
c behalf, may take such steps and use such force as may be necessary
to take possession of the premises and may also enter into the
premises for the said purpose; and

(b) such person shall be punishable with iinprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one
D thousand rupees, or with both."

Incidentally, authorisation to Act in terms of provision of 1962 Act
obviously finds place in the judgment itself by reasons factum of the .)r
respondents' tenancy being declared unauthorised and to appreciate the
E same, a look at the 1962 Statute would be convenient. The Act of 1962 has
been introduced in the statute book to provide speedy eviction of unauthorised
occupants from public lands, which however includes buildings and other
things attached. Similar however, is the provision for issuance of notice and
the statutory sanction in terms of section 4 provides eviction of the persons
in unauthorised occupation on public land. The High Court obviously preferred
F earlier statute to apply in the contextual facts, rather than later statute, but
that can not however be accepted as fair reading of the law and the fact-
situation of the matter in issue. In this context, section 12 of the Act of 1976
ought to be noticed. Section 12 provides:-

G "12. Act to override other laws. (I) The provisions of this Actshall
have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, or in any contract, express or implied, or in
any custom or usage to the contrary.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the fore-
H going provisions, the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of
STATE v. BANALATA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. [BANERJEE, J.) 245

Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1962 shall not be applicable to any A
premises to which this Act applies."
~ The overriding effect of the Act thus can not be whisked away as
adumbrated ~bove. Needless to record here that the principal section 12
stands re-numbered as sub-section 1 and sub-section 2 has been inserted by
West Bengal Act 30 of 1985. Statutory intent thus stand clarified that the Act B
of 1962 shall not be applicable to the government premises to which the Act
of 1976 applies. The definition of Government_premises within the meaning
of Section 2(A) as noticed above is rather of widest possible amplitude. The
discussions in the impugned judgment do not show that it was the case of
" any of the parties that the building in question is not 'Government premises'
c
as defined in the Act of 1976. In sub-section (2) of Section 12 the legislature
has clearly laid down that the Act of 1962 shall not be applicable to any
premises to which this Act (Act of 1976) applies. The c6nclusion therefore
is inescapable that any proceeding for eviction of unauthorised occupants of
the premises in question has to be initiated only under the Act of 1976. The
judgment of the High Court is in conflict with the express statutory provision D,
in Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1976. Therefore, the High Court clearly erred
in holding that the proceeding under the Act of 1976 was not maintainable
and that proceeding for eviction, if any, may be taken under the Act of l 9q2.
,.:.
In any event, by reasons of specific finding of the High Court as to whether
the Writ Petitioner can at all be said to be tenants in respect of the premises
under the heirs of S.K. Ghose or VC. Sood is not the concern of the Appellate E
Bench, the finding or at least the recording of observation about the non
applicability of the Act of 1976 does not and can not arise. In our view the
High Court is clearly in error having regard to the finding as recorded therein
in the judgment impugned before this Court. In any event, the effect of
--... Section 12 of the Act of 1976 has not been noticed at all and the interpretation F
offered and the meaning imputed to the words used in the 1976 legislation,
in our view has been totally mis-placed.

On the wake of the aforesaid, we are unable to record our concurrence
with the judgment under appeal.

Considering, however the duration of occupation being for quite a
G
number of years, we deem it fit in the interest of justice to allow the respondents
herein to vacate the premises by 31st October, 2001. It is placed on record
that this order is passed without however any prayer for the same being made
.........__ by the respondents. The extension of time is granted in terms of this order,
however shall be subject to filing of the usual undertaking before this Court H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 3 S.C.R.

A within a period of four weeks in default of which the appellant would be at
liberty to take steps in accordance with law.

The appeals are thus allowed. The judgment of the High Court thus
stands set aside. Parties to bear their costs.

B B.S. Appeals allowed.