A person who was lawfully in occupation of Government premises as a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated and who continues in possession of those premises cannot be described in law as a person in unauthorized occupation.

Headnote:
GOVERNMENT PREMISES (EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 3 - INTERPRETATION - UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION - TENANT WHOSE TENANCY HAS BEEN TERMINATED - NOT AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a displaced person, was given a flat under instructions from the Ministry of Defence on the basis that he was a dependant of an army officer. The Union of India, the owner of the premises, gave the respondent a notice to quit, and when he did not hand over possession, the Union issued a further notice under Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, calling upon the respondent to hand over possession within fifteen days.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the respondent was not an unauthorized person within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act and that the notice issued by the Union of India against him was an invalid notice.
Issues: Whether a person who was lawfully in occupation of Government premises as a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated and who continues in possession of those premises can be described in law as a person in unauthorized occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expression "unauthorised occupation" in Section 3(1)(b) of the Act refers to persons who had no title at all or whose title came to an end and who continued in possession without any legal right, and not to persons who entered with title and whose title came to an end, but who continued in possession which possession was a juridical possession protected by law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and held that the respondent was not bound to hand over possession of the premises until December 31 of that year.

JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a Judgment of Mr. Justice Desai and it raises a very short question as to the interpretation of Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, being Act No. 27 of 1950. It is necessary to state only a few facts in order to understand and appreciate the legal arguments that are advanced before us.

2. The respondent is a displaced person and he has a son in the army and a flat which is situated at Dhobi Talao was given to him under instructions from the Ministry of Defence on the basis that he was a dependant of an army officer and was a displaced person. It is not In dispute that a contractual monthly tenancy was created between the Union of India, which is the owner of these premises, and the respondents, and by notice to quit given on behalf of the Union on 25-6-1953, the tenancy was terminated.

As the respondent did not hand over possession, as a matter of fact he had filed the petition from which this appeal arises on 15-4-1953, prior to the notice, apprehending that the appellant who is the Sub-Area Commander would take action against him, the Union gave a further notice on 3-8-1953, under Section 3 of Act 27 of 1950, calling upon the respondent to hand over possession within fifteen days from the date of the service of the notice, and the only question that arises in this appeal is whether this notice is a valid notice, and it will only be a valid notice provided the respondent comes within the ambit of Section 3 of Act 27 of 1950.

That Act was put on the statute book, as the preamble shows, for the purpose of providing for the eviction of certain persons from Government premises and for certain matters connected therewith. The expression "certain persons" does not throw much light on the intention of the Legislature because it is clear that the persons contemplated are persons who would satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 3, and, therefore, in order to determine whether a person is the certain person to whom the Act applies, what we have to do is to construe Section 3 and in construction of Section 3 the preamble is not of any assistance.

Section 3 is entitled "Power to evict certain persons from Government premises." Sub-section (2) of Section 3 gives the power to the competent authority to evict the person from, and take possession of, the premises and for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Section 4 confers the power upon the authority to recover damages. Section 5 provides for appeal to the Central Government. Section 6 ousts the jurisdiction of civil Courts and Section 9 is the penal section which makes a person liable to punishment if he obstructs the lawful exercise of any power conferred by or under the Act or contravenes any provision of the Act or of any rule or order made thereunder. Therefore, the statute is in the nature of a penal statute and there can be no doubt that it must be strictly construed in favour of the subject.

Now, turning to Section 3, it provides:

"(1) If the competent authority is satisfied-

(a) that the person authorised to occupy any Government premises has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act,--

(i) sub-let, without the permission of the Central Government or of the competent authority, the whole or any part of such premises, or

(ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such premises, or

(b) that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any Government premises.

the competent authority may, by notice served by post or otherwise, order that that person as well as any other person who may be in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises, shall vacate them within fifteen days of the date of the service of the notice....."

The scheme of Section 3 seems to be that Sub-clause (a) deals with persons who are authorised to occupy Government premises and it gives the power to evict in cases where such persons have sub-let

Click Here to Read the rest of this document