1967 Supreme(Cal) 66

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. N. SINHA, A. K. MUKHERJI, S. K. MUKHERJEE
STANDARD LITERATURE CO. PRIVATE LTD. - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondent
C. R.  1371 (W)  Of  1964
Decided On : APRIL 6, 1967

Headnote:

The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (Central Act 32 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") was challenged as ultra vires and void. The main grounds of challenge were that the provisions of the said Act are unconstitutional and void, as infringing the provisions of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution; the Act is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution; and that the notice under Section 4 was defective, as no ground was given therein as required by law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner No. 1, Standard Literature Company Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "company") is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are directors and shareholders thereof. Prior to September 19, 1963 and commencing from the year 1916, this Company was a tenant in respect of room nos. 22, 24, 27, 28 in the ground floor and Nos. 46. 62. 66, 57, 58, 60, 64, 65, 66, 66/1 and 67 on the first floor, half of Nos. 47 and 55 Common Staircase, in premises Nos 13, 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3 Old Court House Street and Nos. 1, 2 and 2/1 Mangoe Lane, in Calcutta, under the previous owner, the Hercules Trading Corporation Private Ltd. On or about the 19th of September. 1963. the demised premises were purchased by the Union of India (the respondent No. 1) and the company became a lenanl under the said respondent on the same terms and conditions as before On or about the 31st of March. 1964, the company received a notice to quit, stated to have been issued on behalf of the President of India. calling upon them to quit and vacate the said premises on the expirv of the month of April. 1984 A copy of the said notice is annexed to the petition and marked with the letter 'a' On the 20th April, 1964 the company, through one of its directors, objected to comply with the said notice A copy of the said letter of objection is annexure 'b' to the petition. On or about the 22nd of April, 1964 a notice to quit was issued by the Deputy Director of Estates and Ex-officio Under Secretary to the Government of India, on behalf of the President of India, withdrawing the earlier notice dated 31st March, 1964 and calling upon the company to quit and vacate the said premises on the expiry of the month of May, 1964 It was stated In the said notice that a portion of the premises held by the company was urgently required by the Government of India for its own use for allotment to the Central Government offices, after remodelling the premises. A copy of this notice is annexure C to the petition. On 4th of May, 1964. the company objected to the said notice. On the 22nd of June, 1964 one Shri T. C. Jain, describing himself as the Estate Officer appointed under the said Act. purported to give notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act It was stated in the said notice that the said Estate Officer was of the opinion, on grounds specified in the notice, that the company was in unauthorised occupation of the public premises mentioned in the schedule to the said notice and that it should he evicted from the said premises. A copy of the said notice is annexure 'e' to the petition On the 18th of August. 1964, a fresh notice was issued by the said Estate Officer asking the company to show cause under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the said Act The relevant part of the said notice is set out below:

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (Central Act 32 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") was not ultra vires and void, as infringing the provisions of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution; the Act is not violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution; and that the notice under Section 4 was not defective, as no ground was given therein as required by law.

Issues: 1. Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (Central Act 32 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") was ultra vires and void, as infringing the provisions of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the Act is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the notice under Section 4 was defective, as no ground was given therein as required by law?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the said Act was not ultra vires and void, as infringing the provisions of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution, as the Act is a special law dealing with a special problem, namely the problem of taking speedy action against unauthorised persons in occupation of governmental lands. It is permissible to look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons to find out the background of a particular legislation, see State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the present statute, we find the following: "the Public Premises (Eviction) Act 1950. was enacted to provide a speedy machinery for the eviction of persons in unauthorised occupation of public premises and certain incidental matters. This Act has been declared ultra vires by the Calcutta. Allahabad and Punjab High Courts." 2. The Court held that the Act is not violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, as the classification of Government property and the occupants thereof separately from the other lands or the occupants thereof is valid. The provisions in the preamble and tht body of the Act read In the background of the Objects and Reasons show that speedy eviction from Government lands was the object. Therefore, the provisions in the body of the Act in so far as they carry out the object in making the classification can be upheld Once the large area was determined, the selective classification within that area by Government or its delegate is permissible. 3. The Court held that the notice under Section 4 was not defective, as no ground was given therein as required by law, as a tenant of properties belonging to Government is in a somewhat worse position than a person holding private lands The proviso to Section 1 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 states that the 1956 Act does not apply to any premises belonging to Government. Therefore, where the tenancy of a person has been properly determined under the Transfer of Propertv Act, then in the case of lands belonging to Government, there is no defence to eviction. All that Sub-section (2) of sec-tion 4 requires is that the notice under Sub-section (1) should specify the grounds on which the order of eviction was proposed to be made. If a notice to quit has been valid-ly served, and the period specified therein has expired, then the person served is in "unauthorised occupation" as defined under Clause (e) of Section 2 (1) of the said Art I do nol soo why this should not be a sufficient ground for an order of eviction under the said Act. In such a case, the person concerned has no defence, and all that was happening is that the machinery of eviction was being expedited.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the application and discharged the Rule.