Back
1999 Supreme(All) 1024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yatindra Singh, J.
MUNICIPAL BOARD, CHUNAR - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL S.D.O., SADAR, MIRZAPUR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 2525 Of 1979
Decided On : 07/26/1999
RAKESH BAHADUR, Sankatha Rai, V.C.MISHRA
The Tenancy Act is not a law relating to land tenure within the meaning of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972, and land held by a tenure holder under the Tenancy Act is public premises under the Act.
Headnote:
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 2(AA), 2(E), 2(G) - TENANCY ACT, 1939 - WHETHER A LAW RELATING TO LAND TENURE - WHETHER LAND HELD BY A TENURE HOLDER UNDER THE TENANCY ACT IS PUBLIC PREMISES - WHETHER CONTESTING RESPONDENTS ARE IN UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a property that was Nazul property, leased out by the District Magistrate and managed by the Municipal Board. The contesting respondents were in possession of the property, claiming rights under a lease deed in favor of their predecessor-in-interest. The Board initiated eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (the Act), but the lower courts dismissed the proceedings, holding that the property was not premises within the meaning of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tenancy Act, 1939 (the Tenancy Act) is not a law relating to land tenure within the meaning of the Act and that the land held by a tenure holder under the Tenancy Act is public premises under the Act. The Court also held that the contesting respondents were in unauthorized occupation of the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tenancy Act is a law relating to land tenure within the meaning of the Act? 2. Whether the land in question is public premises under the Act? 3. Whether the contesting respondents are in unauthorized occupation of the same?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the definition of premises under Section 2(aa) of the Act, which excludes land held by a tenure holder under any law relating to land tenure, but does not include the Tenancy Act. The Court held that this omission was intentional and that the Legislature did not intend to exclude land held by a tenure holder under the Tenancy Act from the purview of the Act. 2. The Court interpreted the definition of public premises under Section 2(e) of the Act, which includes Nazul lands or any other premises entrusted to the management of the local authority. The Court held that the property in dispute was Nazul property and was entrusted to the management of the Board, and therefore it was public premises. 3. The Court interpreted the definition of unauthorized occupation under Section 2(g) of the Act, which states that a person is in unauthorized occupation of public premises if there is no authority for his occupation or if there was some authority or grant but has expired. The Court held that the contesting respondents had authority/grant for their occupation, but that lease deed had not expired, and therefore their occupation was not unauthorized.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the orders of the lower courts and remanded the cases back to the prescribed authority for reconsideration on the merits, including the question of whether the contesting respondents had become tenure holders under the U. P. Urban Area Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956.
( 1 ) IS the U. P. Tenancy Act. 1939 (the Tenancy Act for short), a law relating to land tenure within the meaning of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 [the Act for short)? Is land held by a tenure holder under the Tenancy Act. premises within the meaning of the Act? These questions arise for determination in these four writ petitions. This is how they arise. FACTS
( 2 ) THE property in dispute is Nazul property. The concerned District Magistrate had leased it out in favour of the predecessor-in -interest of the contesting respondents. The notified area committee had renewed it for a term. Subsequently, the lessees transferred the property in favour of the contesting respondents. After expiry of the period of the leases, a notice was issued to the contesting respondents under the Act for their eviction in proceedings initiated by the Municipal board, Chunar. Mirzapur (The Board for short ). It is not disputed that now the Board manages the property. The Courts below have dismissed the proceedings on the ground that property in dispute is not premises under the Act. Hence these writ petitions. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
( 3 ) I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai and Sri. R. N. Singh learned counsel for the parties. The following points arise for determination : (i) Is the Tenancy Act a law relating to land tenure within the meaning of the Act? (ii) Is the land in question public premises under the Act? (iii) Are the contesting respondents in unauthorised occupation of the same? 1st POINT : THE TENANCY ACT-LAW RELATING TO LAND TENURE
( 4 ) THERE is no doubt that the Tenancy Act is a law relating to land tenure, as these words are normally understood. But is it a taw relating to the land tenure within the meaning of the Act, is the question before me. The Act was first promulgated as an ordinance then enacted as an Act in 1972. The Act was amended by the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act 28 of 1976) (the Amending Act for short ). The act as it originally stood is referred to as the unamended Act and as it stands today is referred to as the Act. The first four paragraphs of the statement of objects and reasons of the unamended act narrate the history for enacting the Act, Paragraph 4 of the statement, objects and reasons states that care was taken to consolidate several existing laws governing different classes of public lands and buildings. But it appears that despite this, some, anomalies persisted. It was for this reason that it was amended in 1976. amending some provisions of the unamended Act. This is so stated in paragraph 11 of the statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act. It if for this that the provisions of the unamended Act and the Act are relevant for deciding the controversy in issue.
( 5 ) INITIALLY, in the unamended Act, the words premises and public premises were defined in clause 2 (b) and 2 (c) of the Act. There was no definition of the phrase law relating to land tenure. The reference to the laws relating to land tenure was in the definition of the word premises itself. The definition of the premises in the unamended Act excluded the land held by a tenure-holder, inter alia under the Tenancy Act also. By the amending Act, definition of premises, and public premises were amended and the words law relating to land tenure was inserted as clause 2 (aa ). This new definition of premises was deemed always to have been substituted. It was retrospective. 3 The premises now do not include land held by a tenure holder under any law relating to land tenure. But this law relating to land tenure in new clause 2 (aa)does not include the Tenancy Act ; earlier it did. This omission, in the light of the statement of objects and reasons of the unamended Act and the Amending Act, appears to be on purpose. The intention of the Legislature is not to exclude the land held by a tenure holder under the Tenan
