The provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 can be invoked by a nationalised bank against a company that occupies public premises without authority.

1. Can the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 be invoked by a Nationalised Bank against the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.? This is the short question that arises in this case. A few facts may be noticed.

2. In the year 1965, the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. took on lease the second floor of SCO No. 70-71, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh from the New Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) at a monthly rent of Rs. 1100.00. In the year 1970, a registered lease-deed was executed between the petitioner-Company and the Bank and the rate of rent was raised to Rs. 1300.00 per month. The lease deed was originally executed for a period of five years, but was renewable for another term of five years on a monthly rent to be fixed in accordance with the prevailing rates. In the year 1970 the Parliament passed the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Bank Nationalisation Act). The New Bank of India thus, became a Corporation established by the Central Act. The Parliament also enacted the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertaking in India) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Burmah Shell Act).

3. In February, 1990, a building known as Tel Bhawan was constructed by the petitioner-Company. It shifted some of its branches to this building. It is averred that the main Engineering Branch was, however, allowed to continue functioning in the leased premises in Sector 17, Chandigarh. While the petitioners were enjoying the peaceful possession of the premises, the Bank served two notices dated 17/12/1990 and 3/09/1991 terminating the tenancy of the petitioners under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is further averred that in order to pressurise the petitioners to vacate the premises, the Bank started creating problems like stopping of water and non-cooperation regarding use of amenities etc. When the petitioners did not vacate the premises, proceedings under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act) were initiated. On receipt of a notice dated Nove 23/11/1991 from the Estate Officer, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. The action of the respondent-Bank and the Estate Officer in initiating the proceedings has been challenged as being wholly without jurisdiction.

4. It is claimed that the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked in case of a public undertaking. The action is against the legislative intent and a public undertaking can never be described as an unauthorised occupant. It is also averred that respondent No. 3 the Estate Officer is an employee of the Bank and the petitioners cannot expect any justice from them. According to the petitioners, the provisions of the Rent Act apply and only in accordance therewith that it can be evicted from the premises in question.

5. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only. None has been filed on behalf of the Union of India. It is averred that the Act is a complete Code in itself and provides for the remedy of eviction of unauthorised occupants. The lease having been terminated and the petitioners having been asked to vacate the premises, became an unauthorised occupant, after 1/10/1991. It is averred that the proceedings have been initiated in accordance with law and that under Sec. 5 of the Act, the Estate Officer has to pass an order after considering the evidence adduced by the parties. The aggrieved party has a right to appeal to the District Judge. On this premises, it is claimed that the petition is wholly devoid of merit and has been filed with the object of delaying the proceedings.

6. I have heard Mr. Salil Sagar for the petitioners and Mr. Pawan Mutneja for the respondents.

7. It is apt to notice the relevant provisions of the Act. Sec. 2(e) defines public premis