JUDGMENT

S.C. AGRAWAL, J.:—The common question which arises for consideration in these appeals, by special ledve, and the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is, whether a person who was inducted as a tenant in premises, which are public premises for the purpose of the Public Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Public Premises Act), and whose tenancy has expired or has been terminated, can be evicted from the said premises as being a person in unauthorised occupation of the premises under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and whether such a person can invoke the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act). In short, the question is, whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act would override the provisions of the Rent Control Act in relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the enactments.

2. Civil Appeals Nos.2368 and 2369 of 1986 relate to the premises which are part of a building situated at 5 Parliament Street, New Delhi. The said building originally belonged to Punjab National Bank Ltd., a banking company. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (Appellant No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 1986) and M/s. Sahu Jain Services Ltd. (Appellant No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 2369 of, 1986) were tenants of premises located in the said building since July Ist 1958. As a result of the enactment of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Banks Nationalisation Act), the undertaking of the Punjab National Bank Ltd., was transferred and vested in Punjab National Bank a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the said Act and the aforesaid appellants became the tenants of Punjab National Bank. By notices dated May 18, 1971 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenancies of both the appellants were terminated by Punjab National Bank, with effect from, November 30, 1971. Thereafter, the said Bank initiated proceedings under the Rent Control Act against both the appellants. In those proceedings an objection was raised be the said appellants that proceedings for eviction under the Rent Control Act were not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in the Public Premises Act. During the pendency of the said proceedings under the Rent Control Act, proceedings were initiated by the Estate Officer against the appellants under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and while the said proceedings under the Public Premises Act were pending the earlier proceedings initiated under the Rent Control Act were dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, by orders dated August 6, 1979. In the proceedings, under the Public Premises Act, the Estate Officer passed orders for eviction against the appellants and the appeals filed by the appellants against the said orders of the Estate Officer were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi. The appellants filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the Delhi High Court. The said writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court by orders dated May 30, 1986. Aggrieved by the said orders of the High Court, the appellants have filed these appeals after obtaining snecial leave to appeal.

3. Civil Appeal No. 3725 of 1986 relates to an office room in the Allahabad Bank Building situated at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The said building belongs to Allahabad Bank, a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Banks Nationalisation Act, the said premises were let out to Pt. K. B. Parsai, the appellant in this appeal, for a period of three years with effect from, February 1, 1982. After the expiry of the said period eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Public Premises Act were initiated to evict the appellant and in those Droccedings the Estate Officer passed an order dated March 28, 1986. The appellant filed a writ petitio