LexASHOKA MARKETING LTD. AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.,. ASHOKA MARKETING LID. AND ANR. ETC: ETC. v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. ETC. ETC. AUGUST 7, 1990 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ., B.C. RAY, M.H. KANIA, K.N. SAIKIA AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14, 22, 50 and 54- ~~Tenant of 'Public Premises'-Tenancy terminated or expires under -1 Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971- Whether entitled to invoke the statutory protection of Rent Control Act, 1958. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 197 I: Sections 2(e), 4(i) and 7(3)-'Public Premises'-Whether includes premises belonging to Nationalised banks-Tenant in such premises- Tenancy expires or is terminated-Whether can invoke pro:~ction of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The appellants /petitioners were tenants in the premises belonging to the respondent Banks /Life Insurance Corporation of India. Their tenancy had expired or had been terminated by the respondents and eviction proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of the ::j P.ublic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Writ petitions under Article 226 were f"ded by the appeUants in the High Court challenging the orders of eviction passed againSt them, which were dismissed; hence these appeals. The writ petitioners moved this Court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution against the notices of termination of tenancy issued to them. '· - The Public Premises Act of 1971 was preceded by two enactments the Government Premises (Eviction) Act 1950, and the Public Premises (eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1958 which were declared unconstitutional by different High Courts. Jagu_ Singh v. M. Shaukat /iii, (58 Cat. W.N. 1066); Satish Chander & Anr. v. Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1958 Punjab l; Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub Area v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1956 AU. 507; P.L. Mehar etc. v. D.R. Khanna, etc., AIR 1971Deihl1 and Northern ~ India Caterers Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Anr., [1967] 3 SCR 399. 649 A B c D E F G H 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R. A This led to the enactment of the Public Premises Act in 1971. The i._- validity of this act was upheld by this Court in Hari Singh v. The Military Estate Officer, [1973] I SCR SIS. B c Before this Court, the contentions were advanced by the parties mainly on two questions (i) whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act were applicable to the Premises belonging to a nationa- lised bank; and (ii) whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act override the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. \In regard to the applicability of the Public Permises act, it was inter alia contended that the premises belonging to a nationalised bank or insurance company did not fall within the ambit of the deimition of 'Public Premises' contained in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act for the reason that the nationalised bank was not a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 19S6 and it was also not a· corpora- tion established by or under a Central Act. On the other hand, it was contended that the respondents being nationalised bank, was a corpora- D lion established by a Central Act, viz., the Bank Nationalisation Act, and the premises belonging to a nationalised bank were 'public pre- mises' under section 2(e)(2)(1i) of the Public Premises Act. In regard to the second question, each side claimed that the enact- ment relied upon by it was a special statute and the other enactment was E general, and also invoked the not obstante clause contained in the enact- ment relied upon. In this connection, it was argued on behalf of the respndents that the Public Premises Act having been enacted by Parlia- ment in exercise of legislative power under Article 246( 1) of the Constitution in respect of matters enumerated in the Union List would ipso-facto override the provisions of the Rent Control Act enacted in F exercise of the legislative powers under Article 246( 4) in respect of matters enumerated in the concurrent list. Dismissing the appeals and the writ petition, this Court, HELD: (I) The provisions of the Public Premises Act, to the G extent they cover premises falling within the ambit of the Rent Control Act, override the provisions of the Rent Control Act, and a person in unauthorised OCCUJlalion of public premises under Section 2( e) of the Act cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act. [6940-E) (2) Aft
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.