The provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1971 prevail over State Rent Control Legislations concerning unauthorized occupants, irrespective of when tenancies were created.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. In view of two conflicting judgments on the aspect of overriding applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971¹ [PP Act 1971] as against State Rent Control Legislations, a two-Judge Bench of this Court passed order dated 17.03.2015 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 35859 of 2014, [now Civil Appeal No. 2638 of 2023] along with other Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 6677 of 2015 and 4112 of 2015, referring the matters for adjudication by a three-Judge Bench.

1.1 The referral order dated 17.03.2015, aforementioned, reads as under:

“In these petitions, in fact, the ratio decided by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its Estate Officer, 2014 (4) SCC 657 is contrary to the decision of the Constitution Bench rendered in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Another vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, 1990 (4) SCC 406. Therefore, these matters need to be heard by a three-Judge Bench.”

1.2 It is accordingly that the present batch of cases came to be posted before this Court, which await answer to the issue referred to.

Issue Under Reference

2. The principal question that arises for determination in this batch of matters is whether the provisions of the PP Act 1971 would prevail over the respective State Rent Control legislations, in relation to premises let out prior to the commencement of the said Act, as against the premises let out after its enforcement but before their acquisition or transfer to the Government or any statutory corporation, by which the character of such premises stood transformed into “public premises” within the meaning of the Act.

2.1 In other words, the issue that falls for determination is whether, for the purposes of application of the PP Act 1971, a valid distinction can be made between tenants who were in occupation of the premises prior to the enforcement of the said Act and those who entered into occupation subsequent thereto but before such premises were taken over by the Government or a Government Corporation, as the case may be; and whether in such cases, the operation of the PP Act 1971 is intended to be only prospective in nature.

Representative Facts

3. As the Civil Appeal No. 2638 of 2023 titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited vs. Vita Pvt. Ltd. and Another has been treated to be the lead matter, the basic facts involved therein may be highlighted as representative. In all other cases the facts are more or less similar. The Special Leave Petition/Civil Appeal arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated 20.06.2014 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2628 of 2013 whereby the High Court quashed the order of the City Civil Court which had declared the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer under the PP Act 1971 to be illegal, resting on the reasoning that the controversy was covered by the judgment of this Court in Suhas H. Pophale (supra).

3.1 The Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited–appellant herein, which is a statutory Corporation established under the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 an entity wholly owned by the Central Government, owns and maintains, amongst other immovable properties, the premises described as Flat No. G-B, Ground Floor, Jeevan Jyot Builiding, 7 Setalwad Road, Mumbai-400 006, and identifie