Jha, J. -- 1. Learned Single Bench has referred this dispute before the larger Bench on account of difference of interpretation of provisions of section 2(e) of M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedkhali) Adhiniyam by the Division Bench judgments. ip the case of Hariom Verma and another v. State of M.P. and others [1992(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 184] and in the case of R.P. Shanna v. Competent.Authority MP No.474/92 decided on 23.6.1997 reported in 1992(2) MPWN 74.

2. Short question involved in these cases is whether the premises belonging to local authority will fall within the meaning of "public premises" as defined under section 2(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam") and Adhiniyam is applicable to premises belonging to local autrurity.

3. In the case of Hariom Verma (supra), it is held that Adhiniyam is not applicable to property belonging to Municipality, whereas in another decision in the case of R.P. Sharma (supra), il is held that the definition under section 2(e) of the Adhiniyam encompasses properties of municipal council i.e. local authority, therefore, Adhiniyam is applicable to the properties of the municipal council and municial council can evic the unauthorised occupants under the provisions of the Adhiniyam.

4. Following question of law is referred for determination:

"Whether a 'public premises' as defined under section 2(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 includes' a premises belonging to a local authority or not?"

5. Shri R.D. Jain, senior advocate appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Hariom Verma (supra) and submitted that the language of section 2(e) occurring in the Adhiniyam is plain and simple. Section 2(e)(i) and section 2(e)(ii) has been interpreted in this judgment. Counse1.for the petitioner submitted that it is held in this case that any premises belonging to any "local authority" will not encompass the property of local authority as clause (ii) speaks of statutory corporation of which the character is defined in the second part of clause (ii) whereby corporation which is "owned or controlled" by the State or a local authority and properties of local authorities are not included in the definition of public premises. The properties must be of corporation owned and controlled by local authority. Thus, any corporation not being a company should be owned or controlled by State Government or local authority. He submitted that the language occurring in section 2(e) is clear and specific and submitted that subsequent Division Bench judgment in the case of R.P. Sharma (supra), has not taken note of earlier judgment, as such previous judgment will prevail over the subsequent judgment and he placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of labalpur Bus Operators Association v. State of M.P. [2003(1) JLJ 105=2003(1) MPLJ 513]. In this case it is held that in the case of conflict of decisions in the judgments of the Supreme Court comprising equal number of Judges, decision of earlier Bench is binding. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the definition of public premises legislature has excluded the properties of local authority and the intention of legislature will prevail and legislative intent is clear whereby provisions of the Adhiniyam is not applicable to properties of municipalities. He reerred to the decision in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others [AIR 1978 SC 1807] and submitted that the I object of the legislation is essential to interpret the provisions. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jathanand v. Nagar Palika, Mandsaur [1980 JLJ 494]. Learned Single Bench in this case has considered the scope of unamended provisions of section 2(e) of the Adhiniyam and in section 2( e) as it stood at the relevant time it was provided that the public premises will in