JAIN INK MANUFACTURING COMPANY versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 22-08-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
D 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
498 
JAIN INK MANUFACTURING COMPANY 
v. 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. 
August 22, 1980 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI 
AND A. D. KoSHAL, JJ.)· 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; S. 2(2)(g)-
Unauthorised occupation of public premises--Tenant in possession before the-
pre'mises became public premises--Eviction whether can be ordered under the 
Act. 
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, Delhi 
Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) & Slum Areas (Improvement and Clear-
ance) Act 1956-0ver-riding effect of Acts--No conflict as scope and objects of 
Acts are di!Je.rent-Premises Act whe'ther prevails over Rent Act. 
The L.l.C. (respondent No. 1) purchased a building at a court auction. 
The appellant was inducted as a tenant by the prior owner of the premises. 
The L.I.C. gave notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 
directing the appellant to vacate the premises. As the appellant did not vacate 
the premises the L.l.C. filed a complaint with the Estate Officer, L.T.C. (respon-
dent No. 2) under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unautho-
rised Occupants) Act, 1971, who issued a notice to the appellant under section 
4(1) of the Act to show cause why the appellant be not evicted. Before the 
Estate Officer the appellant raised preliminary objections which related to the 
question of jurisdiction of the Estate Officer to proceed under the Premises 
Act. The Estate Officer decided the question against him and the High Court 
confirmed the order. 
In appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant it was contended: (1) 
The appellant could not be described as an 'unauthorised occupant' within the 
meaning of section 2(2)(g) of the 1971 Act because he had entered into posses-
sion of the premises long before they were purchased by the L.I.C. ; (2)1i). The 
Premises Act of 1971 whi~h had been given retrospective effect f~om the 16th 
September, 1958 should be construed as a law having been passed in 1958 
and so construed the Rent Act <The Delhi Rent Control Act) passed in 1959 
over-rides the Premises Act ; (ii) The Rent Act whi.ch is a special law would 
override the Premises Ac~ and (iii) The intention of the Legislature in passing the· 
Rent Act as seen from section 3(a) was merely to exclude from its operation. 
only premises belonging to the Government and if the intention was to exclude 
other premises belonging to corporate bodies or Corporations then section 3(a) 
would have been differently worded. 
Apart from the Rent Act section, Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improve-
ment and Clearance) Act, 1956 which is also a Special Act applying only to 
such places which are declared to be slums under the Act, would overrid~ 
the provisions of· both the Rent Act and the Premises Act. 
~AIN INK MFG. CO. V. LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. 
499 
Dismissing the Appeal: 
HELD: (l)(a) The appellant was undoubtedly in unauthorised occupation 
of the premises. [503 DJ 
(b) Section 2(2)(g) does not use the word 'possession' or the words 'entry 
into possession' at any point of time at all. The section merely requires occu· 
pation of any public premises. 
Entry into possession connotes one single ter-
minus, viz., the point of time when a. person enters into possession or occupies 
the property whereas occupation is a continuous process which starts right from 
the point of time when the person enters into possession or occupies the pre-
mises. and continues until he leaves the premises. [502 G,H] 
In the instant case the lease was determined by the landlord by a notice 
under section l 06 of the Transfer of Property Act. 
Therefore, there can be 
no doubt that the appellant was in unauthorised occupation of the premises 
once the lease was determined. [503 C} 
Raj Kumar Devendm Singh & A nr. v. State o{ Punjab and Ors. [1973] 2 
SCR 166 distinguished. 
A 
B 
2(i) The Premises Act was passed in 1971 and came info force on 23rd 
August, 1971 that is Jong after the Rent Act was passed in 1959. 
The mere 
D 
fact that by virtue of a fiction the Premises Act was given refrospective effect 
from 1958 will not alter the date when the Premises Act was actually passed, 
that is August 23, 1971. 
The Premises Act being subsequent to the Rent Act 
would naturally prevail over and override the provisions of the Rent Act. 
~m 
. 
(ii) The scope and the object of the Premises Act' is quite different from. 
that of the R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.