JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, J.:---This revision is directed against the order passed in appeal under section 9(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the "Public Premises Act" rejecting the claim of the Controller of Aerodrome, Nagpur Airport to recover the rent which was ordered to be paid by the Estate Officer.

2. Briefly stated facts are that non-applicant No. 1 Homi D. Jahangir was licensee at the Nagpur Airport occupying the premises for running a canteen. He was in possession and occupation of the premises under the management of applicant-Controller of Aerodrome, Nagpur Airport upto August 1976. After the non-applicant No. 1 vacated the canteen premises, he was found in arrears of rent. Applicant-Controller of Aerodrome, Nagpur Airport therefore, filed an application under section 7, sub-section (2) of the Public Premises Act on 21-5-1981 claiming the recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 25,345.57 fora period from 1-2-1974 to 7-2-1977 and also some amount towards Electric and water charges plus interest. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 28,345.57 was claimed by the applicant as per the statement made by him before the Estate Officer at Nagpur. The non-applicant No. 1 had submitted a written say before the non-applicant No. 2 Estate Officer. He submitted that the claim of the applicant was without any legal basis and there was no contract between them. Besides the objection regarding the claim of the applicant, the non-applicant No. 1 took the plea that the claim was barred by Article 52 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Evidence was led by the parties and the non-applicant No. 2 after hearing both the sides, passed an order dated 17-4-82 ordering the non-applicant No. 1 to pay to the applicant a total amount of Rs. 30,006.27. The non-applicant No. 1 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Nagpur under section 9 sub section (1) of the Pubic Premises Act being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1982. The District Judge took the view that the premises in question were governed under the International Airports Authority Act, 1971. He was of the view that an Airport Authority is a Corporate Body and therefore. It cannot be termed as Central Government. He further was of the view that the applicant should have fled the claim for recovery of rent within a period of three years under the provisions of Article 52 of the Limitation Act. The Appellate Court also took the view that the provisions under Article 112 of the Limitation Act were not applicable in this case and therefore, allowed the appeal, dismissing the claim of the applicant as barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed on the sole ground that the applicant is governed by the International Airports Authority Act, 1971.

3. Shri Bhangde, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the provisions of International Airports Authority Act, 1971 will not be applicable to the Nagpur Airport. Shri Bhangde is right in his submission in view of the provisions of section 1, sub-section (3) in which the application of the Act is defined. Under sub-section (3) of section 1 of then aforesaid Act, the provisions are applicable to Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras Airport only. The provisions of the aforesaid Act can also be made applicable to other airports by the Central Government by publishing a notification in the Official Gazette. Shri Bhangde submitted at the bar that there is no such notification published extending the provisions of the aforesaid Act to Nagpur Airport.

4. Shri Kothari the learned Counsel Appearing for the non-applicant No. 1 was unable to point out that the provisions of the aforesaid Act also extended to Nagpur Airport. The finding of the learned Appellate Court, therefore, is obviously incorrect inasmuch as the provisions of the International Airports Authority Act, 1971 would not apply to the premises in question. Shri Kothari for the non-applicant No. 1, made two submissions. Fir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document