The definition of 'public premises' under section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, does not include premises belonging to Cantonment Board or any other local authority.

M.P. Singh

1. The present writ petition has been filed against an order dated 12-1-1988 passed by VII Additional District Judge, Kanpur.

2. The facts of the case are that premises no. 104/105, Tilak Marg, Harding Road, Cantonment, Kanpur consisting of two rooms, two covered verandah, one courtyard, one bath room and one latrine was in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed himself to be the tenant whereas according to the respondent the petitioner was only a licensee on payment of Rs. 10/- per month with effect from 24-12-1962.

The respondent No. 2 issued a notice under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 4-2-1986 requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises. Thereafter case no. 1781 of 1986 was instituted against the petitioner by the Cantonment Board, Kanpur.

3. The petitioner filed his objections along with an affidavit. It was stated that he was permitted to occupy the accommodation by resolution no. 101 C dated 24-12-1962 on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. He was a tenant and has been paying the rent regularly since then. He has filed suit no. 406 of 1986 in the court of learned Munsif, City, Kanpur against Cantonment Board and its Engineer Sri S. Iqbal Singh. In that suit his rights and status regarding the accommodation has to be determined. In suit no. 406 of 1986 a stay order was also granted directing the authorities to maintain status quo regarding the accommodation.

4. The Estate Officer vide his order dated 22-12-1986 found that the possession of the petitioner was unauthorised. An order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appeal has also been dismissed on 12-1-1988 against which the present writ petition has been filed.

Heard Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, earned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. K. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the premises in dispute was not public premises within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the Act, hence the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was illegal.

6. This is an admitted fact that the premises belongs to Cantonment Board, Kanpur.

Section 2 (e) of the Act defines public premises as under :-

"2 (e) "public premises " means :- (1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf, the Central Government and includes any such premises which have been placed by that Government, whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980, under the control of the Secretariat of either House of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that Secretariat ;"

It makes no mention about the premises belonging to Cantonment Board or any other local authority.

7. It is admitted fact that the accommodation does not belong to,, nor has been then on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central | Government. IT has been constructed by the Cantonment Board which is only controlled by the Central Government.

8. Clause (2) of section 2 (e) includes any premises belonging to a Corporation established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government within the definition of 'public premises', companies under the Companies Act or local authorities are specially excluded from such Corporation under the clause itself. There can be no question about the Cantonment Board being a local authority within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, even if it is controlled by the Central Government, it cannot be covered by section 2 (e) (1) (i) of the Act. This leads to a conclusion that the premises in dispute is not a public premises within the meaning of the Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision S. R. Gupta v. Ill Additional District, Judge, 1980 (2) UPRCC 66 In that case the petitione