NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS PRIVATE LTD., & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 399 · Decided: 04-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
NORTHERN INDIA CATERERS PRIVATE LTD., & ANR. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
·F 
G 
H 
v, 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 
April 4, 1967 
[K. SUBBA RAO, C.J., 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
R. S. BACHAWAT, 
J, M. SHBLAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 
(31 of 1959), s. 5-Scope of -If ~lo/ates Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
The respondent-State leased its premises to the appellant for running 
a hotel and when the lease expired called upon the appellant to hand over 
vacant possession. 
On the appellant failing to do so, the Collector issued 
a notice under s. 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and 
Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 requiring ,the appellant to show cause why an 
order of eviction should not be passed under s. 5. The appellant thereupon 
filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that the Act violated Art. 
14 of the Constitution in two ways : (I) that it dillC'riminated between 
the occupants of public premises and th* of other pretnises; and ( 2) that 
it discriminated between the occupants of public premises Inter se as the 
State could arbitrarily proceed against an occupant either under the Act 
or by way of suit. The High Court dismined the petition holding that 
the proceeding under the Act is the exclus:ve remedy for ev,iction of un· 
authorised occupants of public premises, that there was a valid classlfication 
between the occupiers oI public premises and those of private properties, 
and that, as the Act was substitutive and not supplemental there waa no 
question of discrimination between the occupiers of public premises Inter se. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (I) The Hi$b Court erred in holding that the Act impliedly 
took away the right of suit by the Government. The Act was only intend· 
ed to provide an additional remedy to the Government which was speedier 
than the one by way of a suit under the ordinary Jaw of eviction. [ 404G; 
411B) 
(Per Subba Rao, C. J., Shelat and Vaidialingam, JJ.) : The impugned 
Act is neither in negative terms nor in such terms which result in negativ-
ing the right of the Government as a landlord to sue for eviction under the 
ordinary law. 
Nor is it possible to say that the co-existence of the two 
sets of provisions relating to eviction under the ordinary law and under the 
Act, leads to any inconvenience or absurdity. The impugned Act deals 
with the Government's right to evict the occupants and tenants of public 
premises, but that fact, by itself would not lead to the inference that the 
Legislature intended to take away the Government's right to file a suit for 
eviction. [404C-E] 
(Per Hidayatullah and Bachawat, JJ.) : The Act does not create a new 
right of eviction. It creates an additional remedy for a right existing under 
the general law and does not repeal the ordinary law giving the remedy of 
a suit for eviction. 
[411CJ 
(2) By Full Court : Th~re is an intelligible differentia between the two 
classes of occupiers, namely, occupiers of public property and premises and 
other occupiers. The classification has a reasonable relation to the object of 
the Act and does not offend Art. 14. The two classes of PC,cupiers are not 
similarly situated in that, in the case of public properties and premises, the 
members of the public have a vital interest in seeing that such properties 
400 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(!967] 3 S.C.R. 
and jlremises are freed from encroachment and unauthorised occupation as 
opeedily as possible;· and the impugned Act has properly devised a special 
machinery for the speed_y recovery of premises belonging to the Govern-
ment. [406C-D; 412C-E] 
Babu Rao Shantaram More v. The Bombay Housing Board and another, 
[1954] S.C.R. 572, followed. 
A 
(3) (Per Subba Rao, C. J., Shelat and Vaidialingam, JJ.)Section 5 of 
B 
the Act confers an additional remedy over and above the remedy by way of 
suit. 
The section violates Art. 14 by providing two alternative remedies to 
the Government and in leaving it to the unguided discretion of the 
Collector to resort to one or the other and to pick and choose some of 
those in occupation of public properties and premises for the application 
.of the more drastic procedure under s. 5. 
[409F-0] 
Discrimination would result if there are two available procedures one 
more drastic or prejudicial to the party concerned than the other and which 
C 
can be applied at the arbitrary will of the authority. 
Assuming that per-
sons in occupation of govern

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