The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

NISITH KUMAR BATABYAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th February, 1993 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in C.R. No. 13552 (W) of 1982 (Messrs. Accounting & Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. & another vs. Union of India & other) The appellants-petitioners filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the ex parte order passed by the Estate Officer, United Commercial Bank dated 25th November, 1982 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises no. 1B, Russel Street, Calcutta by 31st December, 1982. The said order was passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The vires of s. 3 of P.P. Act, 1971 was also assailed as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. In short, the facts of the case are that the United Commercial Bank, respondent no. 2 in the appeal is the owner of premises no.1B, Russel Street, Calcutta. The appellants claim to be the tenant in respect of the disputed premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 1000/- for carrying on business therein. By an agreement between the appellant no.1 and the respondent no.2 dated 3rd January, 1962, the Bank permitted the Company to occupy and use a portion of the disputed premises for carrying on its business there and also use certain furniture, fittings, office equipments, air-conditioner etc. belonging to the Company on certain terms and conditions. The parties thereafter mutually agreed to enter into a fresh agreement on, 20th March, 1972. Under that agreement the Company was to use and occupy the disputed premises at 1B, Russel street, Calcutta for its business and also use the furniture, fittings, equipments etc. which were being used so long and the Company would pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month to the Bank as compensation plus the occupier's share of the Municipal Tax in respect of the said premises. The charges for electricity on June by the Company would also be borne by the Company itself. It was further agreed that at the request of the Company, the Bank would continue its guarantee to IBM for payment of rent due and payable by the Company to the IRM in respect of certain machines on condition that the Company would procure in favour of the Bank a counter guarantee within a specified time. By a notice dated 15th December, 1972 the Bank gave a notice to the appellant no. 1 to quit vacate the disputed premises and deliver up vacant possession in their occupation by 1st July, 1973. The appellant no.1 was also asked by that notice to deliver to the Bank the furniture, fittings, equipments and air-conditioner etc. belonging to the Bank.

3. In October, 1975 the respondent no.2 issued another notice under s. 13(6) of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1965 calling upon the appellant no.1 to quit and vacate the premises in dispute but no suit for eviction was instituted on the basis of that notice. On 4th February, 1977 the respondent no.2 appointed one of its officers as Estate Officer who issued a notice under Ss. 4(1) and 7(3) of the P.P. Act, 1971.

4. Thereafter the appellant no.1 filed a writ application challenging the taking of resort to the P.P. Act, 1971 by the Bank contending that the Act could not extend to any premises held by a Government Corporation and such extension was beyond the legislative competence of the Central Government. That matter was referred to a Division Bench by one Learned Single Judge of this Court as an important point of law was involved. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. The apex Court of the land confirmed the judgment of the Division Bench.

5. Ultimately, the respondent no.3 in the appeal was appointed an Estate Officer by a Notice dated 14th February, 1982. According to the appellants, the recourse of the P.P. Act is not bona fide. It is also alleged that though in October, 1975 the respondent Bank issued a Notice under s. 13(6) of the W.B.P.T. Act, ultimately they resiled from that portion and treated the app