( 1 ) THIS group of petitions is filed against the order dated 30/05/1987 passed by the District Judge, Bhavnagar in various appeals filed before him under Sec. 9 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Public premises Act ).

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present controversy may now be shortly stated. The petitioner is a board, i. e. , the Housing Board constituted under sec. 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Housing Board Act ). The respondent in each petition is an allottee of a tenament either in Middle Income Group (MIG for short) or in Lower income Group (LIG for short) Scheme of Housing Board at Bhavnagar. It is the case of the petitioner-Board that the allottees had not paid rent equivalent to amount of instalments due and payable under the agreement to sell entered into between the Housing Board on one hand and the allottees who are tenants of the Board on the other hand. Since the instalments of several months were not paid by them, they were liable to be evicted under Sec. 4 (i) (a) of the Public Premises Act. An officer on Special Duty was appointed by a notification dt. 12/09/1974 issued under the provisions of the Public Premises Act, as competent Officer. He issued notices under Sec. 4 of the Public Premises act calling upon the allottees to show cause why the orders of eviction should not be passed against them. After following the procedure laid down under the Public Premises Act, the Competent Officer passed orders of eviction on 25/11/1986 against the allottees.

( 3 ) BEING aggieved by the said orders of eviction, the respondentallottees preferred various appeals before the District Judge, Bhavnagar under Sec. 9 of the Public Premises Act. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant-allottees were not governed by the provisions of the Public Premises Act but were governed by the provisions of the Housing Board Act and the proceedings initiated by the Competent Officer under the provisions of the Public premises Act were therefore, without jurisdiction. He was also of the opinion that it was not proved that the allottees were defaulters in payment of the rent equivalent to instalment of the hire-purchase amount. He, therefore, quashed and set aside the orders of eviction as being illegal and contrary to law, and discharged notices issued against them.

( 4 ) IT is against these orders passed by the District Judge, Bhavnagar under Sec. 9 of the Public Premises Act, that the present petitions are filed by the petitioner-Board in this Court.

( 5 ) MRS. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Board has raised two contentions. Firstly, she contended that in view of passing of the gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 and particularly in view of Sec. 19 of the said Act, the Bombay government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 and "any other corresponding law providing for the eviction of occupants from public premises", stood repealed. Thus, the corresponding provisions pertaining to eviction of the persons from the Board premises under the provisions of the Gujarat housing Board Act, 1961 stood expressly repealed. Secondly, and in the alternative, she contended that even if the District Judge was right in holding that the provisions contained in the Housing Board Act relating to the eviction of the persons from. the Board premises did not stand repealed even after the enactment of the Public Premises Act, and this court is of the opinion that the District Judge was right in holding so, then also, the petitioner-Board was having two parallel and concurrent remedies to proceed against the persons who were unauthorisedly occupying the Board premises, namely, either to proceed against them under the housing Board Act, or under the Public Premises Act, and if the Board has proceeded under one of the statutes, the