The judgment established the principle that evidence of valid tenancy prior to the relevant date is crucial in determining the status of occupants as 'unauthorized'. It also affirmed the overriding nature of the Public Premises Act over other Acts in the context of public premises owned by L.I.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel appearing for Life Insurance Corporation Limited.

2. Premises in question become public premises being Life Insurance Corporation, its owner, when its business was nationalised under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to L.I.C. Act) on 16.9.1958 i.e. the date from which the L.I.C. Act brought into force.

3. Similar issue raised by other tenants of the same premises in regard to applicability of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was settled against the petitioners therein in S.P. Mehra and another vs. Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66705 of 2010 decided on 18.1.2011 wherein after considering rival submissions, Co-ordinate Bench has held that:

“Nazool plot over which structures in question are standing has been leased out by the State Government. Said structures in question have been erected and has been leased out to the petitioner initially by M.N. Bhargav followed by M/s Free India General Insurance Company Ltd which has been succeeded by Life Insurance Corporation of India after nationalization. This is accepted position that State Government has taken policy decision for converting the nazool land into free hold land and pursuant thereto big chunk of land has already been converted into free hold and the premises in question wherein petitioner's structures are standing qua the same also for converting nazool land into free hold land. State Government has been approached by Life Insurance Corporation of India and said application remains un-disposed of.

Question is that once lease period of M/s Free India General Insurance Company Ltd succeeded by Life Insurance Corporation of India has come to an end and same has not been renewed then can it be ipso facto treated that same has ceased to be leased property of Life Insurance Corporation of India.

Lease has been defined under Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, as a lease of immoveable property i.e. transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time, express or implied or in perpetuity, in consideration of price paid or promised. Section 106 of the Act, deals with duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage. Section 107 of the Act provides as to how leases are to be made. Section 108 deals with rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee. Section 109 deals with rights of lessor's transferee and Section 110 deals with exclusion of day on which term commences. Section 111 deals with determination of lease and Section 115 deals with effect of surrender and forfeiture on under-leases. Section 116 of the Act deals with effect of holding over.

In the present case accepted position is that State Government in its turn till today has not taken any action whatsoever against Life Insurance Corporation of India as per the terms and condition of lease and to the contrary record in question reflects that under free hold policy floated by the State Government, steps has been undertaken for converting the nazool land into free hold land wherein in phased manner exercise has been undertaken and qua Phase-1, and Phase-II details mentioned at page 35 of the counter affidavit has been converted into free hold and qua properties described in Phase-III, 2629.80 sq meters has already been made free hold and for balance land which is inclusive of the premises rented to petitioner proceedings for converting the land in question into free hold is still pending.

Original lease period is for thirty years, said lease deed contains stipulation for renewal of lease of thirty years, and maximum period of renewal ninety years has also been provided for. Rate has also been provided for to be assessed by the Collector with right of Appeal also. In such a situation and in this background, the tenant