SAWANT, J.:- These are five appeals against the decision of the learned single Judge in five different Miscellaneous Peti­tions, under the Public Premises (Evic­tion of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The appellants in Appeals Nos.214 to 217 of 1979 were the members of the Defence Services and the appellants in Appeal No.207 of 1979 are the heirs and legal representatives of one M.K. Kapoor who was a member of the Defence Services. The premises which are the subject-matter of the appeals were admittedly allotted by the Central Government to these members of the Defence Services because they were in its ser­vice and on the condition that they would vacate the same after they retired from ser­vice. However, in spite of their retirement, they refused to vacate the same. Hence under the Act proceedings for evicting them were started against them before the Estate Officer. In the proceedings, they took the plea that the premises in question were not "public premises'" within the meaning of the said Act and therefore the authority under the said Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the said eviction proceedings. This plea fail­ed before the Estate Officer. The petitioners preferred appeals before the appellate authority under the Act. The appellate authority i.e. the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay dismissed their appeals. The peti­tioners then filed writ petitions on the Original Side of this Court under Art.226 of the Con­stitution. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge. Hence the present appeals.

2. The only question that falls for consideration in all these appeals is whether the premises in question are "public premises" within the meaning of S.2(e) of the said Act. Admittedly, the premises in question are not owned by the Central Government nor are they requisitioned by them. How­ever it is the case of the Government that they are "public premises" firstly because they have been taken on lease from their owners and secondly because in any event, they "belong to the Central Government". According to them further the appellants who are either the allottees from them or claiming under the allottees have no right to challenge the basis on which the Government came in possession of the same. On the other hand, it is the contention of the appel­lants that there is no valid lease in favour of the Government nor has the Government an absolute right of user of the said premises and hence the proceedings under the said Act are not maintainable against them. Since in all these appeals the contentions raised are the same they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. It is necessary to state the relevant facts peculiar to each of these appeals in order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties.

Appeals Nos.207, 214 and 217 of 1979 relate to the flats in a building called "Reviera" situate at Marine Drive, Bombay. These flats were taken by the Central Govern­ment on lease on Aug. 1, 1942 and the rent of the same is being paid by the Government from that date.

The appellants in Appeal No.207 of 1979 are the wife and children of the late Wing Commander M.K. Kapoor. The premises in question are Flat No.22 in the said building. Kapoor was in Air Force Service and retired from the Government service on 3-10-1968. In the meanwhile, he was sent on de­putation to the Air India with effect from 26-9-1967 and till his death on 21-8-1975, he continued in service of the Air India as Pilot designated as Captain. He was allotted the said Flat No.22 on 25-7-1967 and in spite of his retirement from service on 3-10-1968 he failed to vacate the same. Hence, by notice dated 22-11-1971 tile Estate Officer who is the authority appointed under S.3 of the said Act for the purpose, called upon him to vacate the same. Kapoor having failed to do so after holding an enquiry, he passed an order of eviction on 2-5-1972. Kapoor filed an appeal being Appeal No.87 of