AGARWALA, J. :- This is a writ petition directed against the Deputy Director of Military Lands and Cantonments, Eastern Command, Calcutta, the Military Estates Officer, Agra Circle, Agra Cantonment, and the Collector of Moradabad. The applicant Moinuddin claims to be a tenant of agricultural land measuring 13,42 acres situated at Rajabpur, pargana Amroha, district Moradabad. The land belongs to the Government for the purposes of the military department. The opposite party No. 2 the Military Estate Officer, Agra, being in charge of the land, filed a suit for ejectment of the applicant on 16-9-1952 which is still pending.

On 9-7-1953 the Deputy Director, Military Land and Cantonments, Eastern Command, Calcutta, served a notice upon the petitioner asking him to vacate the aforesaid premises within 15 days. This notice was issued under S. 3, Government Premises (Eviction) Act (Act No. 27 of 1950). It was received by the petitioner on 13-7-1953. On 28-7-1953 opposite party No. 2 the Military Estate Officer, Agra, intimated to the petitioner that in pursuance of the notice dated 9-7-1953 he would come and take possession of the disputed land on 8-8-1953 by use of force if necessary.

On 6-8-1953 the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Court praying that a writ, direction or order in the nature of a writ of mandamus be issued against opposite party No. 2 directing him not to disturb the applicants possession over the land in dispute or to take any action whatsoever to evict the applicant from the land or to take away the crop of the applicant, and further that the opposite party No. 3 be directed not to aid the opposite party No. 2 in carrying out its intention.

2. The grounds set forth in the petition for the reliefs claimed were :

(1) that the opposite party No. 1 was not a duly constituted authority within the meaning of S. 3(2) read with S. 2(a), Government Premises (Eviction) Act; (2) that the land in dispute was not premises within the meaning of S. 2(b) and (c) of the said Act; (this ground was based on the fact that the land was an open piece of land whereas "premises" were formerly defined in S. 2(b) as meaning a building or part of a building); (3) that the Government Premises (Eviction) Act (No. 27 of 1950) was beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. (4) that the Government Premises (Eviction) Act infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution and was therefore void under Art. 13 of the Constitution and (5) that the applicant was a tenant of the land and was not in unauthorised occupation of the land.

3. The reply of the opposite parties was that the Deputy Director of Military Lands and Cantonments, Eastern Command, was a competent authority within the meaning of S. 2(a) of the Act and reference was made to the Government of India Notification No. S.R.O. 133 dated 19-4-1952; that the term "premises" having been amended by S. 25, of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (No. 30 of 1952), open lands are also now included within the meaning of the words "government premises"; that the land in question is not an agricultural land but is a military camping ground; that the applicant is unauthorised occupation because the lease in his favour expired on 20-6-1949; that an appeal should have been preferred to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, under S. 5, Government Premises (Eviction) Act of 1950; and lastly that the orders issued to the petitioner by the opposite parties 1 and 2 were perfectly right.

4. Only two points have been pressed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the rest have not been pressed. These points are (1) that the Government Premises (Eviction) Act is invalid because it is beyond the legislative competence of the Union Government, and reference is made to entry No. 32 of List I of the Constitution and it is urged that under this entry the Union can legislate on the property bel