ORDER

1. The short facts relating to civil appeal are as under : The 5th respondent, Union of India (Eastern Railway) owns a cinema building forming part of the civil appeal which is situated in Mughal Sarai. It has an auditorium and other equipments used for films for the entertainment of railway officers and employees. The management of the club building including auditorium, machinery etc. had been entrusted by the 5th respondent (Eastern Railway Administration) to the 3rd respondent (the Railway Cinema Club) in the year 1982. The auditorium of railway cinema was hired to in favour of the appellant for a period of 5 years for screening feature films. On expiry of this period the 2nd respondent, the estate officer, Eastern Railway, Mughal Sarai initiated proceedings for the eviction of the appellant that on expiry of the contract period he had become an unauthorised occupant. The proceedings were taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act of 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The estate officer directed eviction after observing due procedure under Section 5 of the Act. Aggrieved by that order of eviction an appeal was preferred to the first respondent (6th Additional District Judge, Varanasi). That appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant challenged the same in Civil Misc. WP No. 15313 of 1988 before the High Court of Allahabad. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and upheld the order of eviction. Questioning the correctness of the said judgment the present civil appeal has been preferred. The learned counsel for the appellant raises the following points for our consideration:

(1) Insofar as the privity of contract is between the appellant and the Railway Cinema Club it will be a contract between two private individuals. In such a case, for evicting the appellant the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked.

(2) Section 2(e) of the Act defines public premises. When it says "belonging to" it should mean the Central Government must have control over the property. Where it has handed over the property to the Railway Cinema Club which alone had licensed the appellant, it cannot be said that the Government of India (the Railway administration) has control over the property. The meaning of the words "belonging to" had come up for discussion in Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur AIR 1965 SCJ 923. Even though these words may not convey the meaning of ownership, yet Government must have effective control. This is fortified when the definition under Section 2(ii) in relation to company is looked at.

2. In All India Rly. Institute Employees Assn. v. Union of India (1990) 2 SCC 542, this Court held the employees of such cinema houses are not employees of the Railway. It should follow that the Central Government will have nothing to do with the licence in favour of the appellant.

3. In Ashoka Mktg. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (1990) 4 SCC 406 (On SCC pp. 415, in upholding the validity of these Acts this Court took the view that the Central Government will not behave as a private landlord. This is one of the grounds on which the validity was upheld.

4. Hence the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained. It is true that the appellant had been evicted pursuant to the impugned judgment. Nevertheless these questions need to be gone into because there are proceedings against the appellant instituted by the Railway Club under Section 7 of the Act. Should the appellant succeed, the same will be rendered otiose.

5. We have given our careful consideration to each of the submissions made above. We find not one of them tenable. We have already narrated the facts. If admittedly the property belongs to the Union of India, the Railway Cinema Club had been entrusted with the running of the cinema house together with the equipments. It found its running was not a profitable venture. Therefore, by inviting tenders, the offer of the appellant came to be accepted and that was how he b