Judgment

RAY, J.:- (For himself and Sikri, C.J.I, Shelat, Dua, palekar and Khanna, JJ.) These two appeals raised originally the constitutionality of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958. The challenge was on the ground that section 5 (1) of the 1958 Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 5 (1) of the 1958 Act conferred power on the Estate officer to make an order of eviction against persons who are in unauthorised occupation of public premises. The vice of section 5 (1) of the 1958 Act against Article 14 of the Constitution was this. The Government had two alternative remedies of eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation. One was to seek the remedy in a court of law by instituting a suit for eviction. The other was the remedy prescribed by the 1958 Act. The 1958 Act was attacked on the ground that there was the unguided discretion of the authorities to either of the remedies and to pick and choose some of them in occupation of public premises for the application of the drastic procedure under the 1958 Act.

2. The 1958 Act was amended in 1968. Section 10E was introduced into the 1958 Act. Section 10E created bar of jurisdiction of civil court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or the recovery of the arrears of rent payable under S.7(1) or damages payable under S.7 (2) or costs awarded under S.9(5) of the Act. The appellants raised the contention that the amendment effected by section 10E of the Act was not retrospective and therefore the proceedings forming subject matter of the appeals were not saved by the amendment.

3. In the appeal filed by Hari Singh one Behari Lal obtained lease from the President through the Military Estate Officer, Delhi Circle of 36.73 acres of land at Ambala Cantonment. The lease was for four years from 1 May, 1952. The annual rent was Rs.3310/-. The rent was payable in advance. Behari Lal failed to pay rent. The lease expired on 1 May, 1957. The period of the lease was not extended. Behari Lal failed to surrender possession. There was an order dated 17 June, 1960 under the 1958 Act for eviction of Behari Lal. The appellants claimed to be sub-lesses of Behari Lal. The lease permitted sub-letting only with the permission of the competent authority. Notice was given under the 1958 Act to the appellants to show cause as to why they should not be evicted under the Act, because they were in unauthorised occupation of the land. The Estate Officer found that there was no sanction of the competent authority permitting sub-lease. On 25 July, 1961 an order was passed under section 5 of the 1958 Act evicting the appellants. The appellants preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Ambala. On 18 April, 1962 the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the appellants filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 13 May, 1963. The appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 5 September, 1966. The appeal filed by Hari Singh and others is by certificate against the decision of the High Court of Punjab.

4. The appeal filed by Bhartiya Hotel and others is by certificate against the judgment dated 12 December, 1967 of the High Court at Patna. The appellants there are partners carrying on business under the name of Bhartiya Hotel at Ratanpura. One of the partners obtained lease of a plot of land at Chapra in Bihar. Ram Lakhan Prasad is the partner who obtained the lease. The Estate Officer, North Eastern Railway served a notice dated 12 June, 1964 under section 4 (1) of the 1958 Act on Ram Lakhan Prasad for eviction of the appellants on the ground that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation. The Estate Officer on 16 March, 1966 passed an order of eviction against the appellants. The appellants thereafter moved the High Court at Patna for quashing the order of eviction. The High Court on 21