ACCOUNTANT AND SECRETARIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 20-07-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ACCOUNTANT AND SECRETARIAL SERVICES PVT. 
LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
JULY 20, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 
1971-Whether the Act to the extent it had been extended to premises 
belonging to or taken on lease by a Corporation established by or under· 
a Central Act and owned or controlled by Central Government was ultra 
vires or beyond legislative power of Parliament to extend the appli-
cability of the Act to such premises-Determination of question involved. · 
The first appellant in this appeal, a private limited company, 
occupying a portion of the premises belonging to the United Commer-
cial Bank, claimed to be the tenant of the Bank, but this was not admit-
ted by the respondent Bank. The Bank alleged,that the appellant com-
pany had been allowed to occupy a portion of the Bank's premises as 
licensee in consideratiOn of certain accoiJntancy and secretarial services 
rendered to the Bank. The Bank had issued a notice. of eviction to the 
appellant company under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 
('the 1956 Act'). Subsequently, the Bank issued a notice to the appel-
lants under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) 
Act, 1971 ('the 1971 Act') which is an Act of the Parliament. The 
appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court, agitating the question 
whether the impugned Act which provides for eviction of unauthorised 
occupants from public premises. belonging to or taken: on lease by a, 
corporation established by or. under a Central Act mid owned or con-
trolled by the Central Government was ultra vires as it was 'beyond the 
"legislative power of the Parliament to.extend the applicability of the said 
Act to such premises. The appellants were interested in denying the 
legislative power of Parliament in so far as it purported to extend the 
'!PPlicability of the 1971 Act to the premises belonging to or taken on 
lease by public sector corporations. Their argument. went to the extent 
of urging that only the State legislatures and not Parliament were com-
petent to legislate on a topic of landlord-tenant relationship in respect of 
land and buildings. 
According to the appellants, the provisions of 1956 Act were 
squarely applicable and should have been resorted to by the Bank for 
evicting them. 
493 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
The appellants contended that a legislation of the type of West 
Bengal Land (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1962 (1962Act), 
which was on the pattern of the 1971 Act, would fall within the legisla-
tive field exclusively open to the State Legislatures and that the 1971 Act 
was ultra vires the Parliament in so far as it purported to affect the 
appellants' rights. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: Per Sabyasachi Mukharji. J. 
His Lordship agreed with Ranganathan, J. that the appeal should 
be dismissed. His Lordship preferred the view of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in L.S. Nair v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. Bhilai, A.I.R. 1980 
M.P. 106 to the view of the Bombay High Court in Miscellaneous Peti-
tion No. 458/79-Elliot Waud Hill (P) Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corpn. 
This Court had in this Case proceeded on the short question whether 
the impugned Act which provides for eviction of unauthorised occup-
ants from public premises to the extent it had been extended to premises 
belonging or taken on lease hy a corporation established by or under a 
Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government, was 
ultra vires or beyond the legislative power of the Parliament to extend 
the applicability of the Act to such premises. [498D-G I 
There was no dispute, as emphasised by Ranganathan, J., as to 
whether the premises in question or of this type was a public premises. 
For the purpose of this appeal, once it was held that the Public Premises 
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act was intra vires the Parlia-
ment, no further issue between the parties survived. It was not neces-
sary to consider whether the provisions of the 1971 Act even if intra 
vires would pervail upon the provisions of the State Legislation. For the 
purpose of this appeal, it was unnecessary to express any view on the 
amplitude and scope of Article 254 of the Constitution. [498H; 499A-B) 
It had to be taken that the legislation in question must be under-
stood in its pith and substance, and so understood,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.