1981 Supreme(MP) 552

M. D. Bhatt, J.
Omprakash v. Municipal Council, Darwaha.
C. Revn. No 350 of 1980 (I); Decided on 25-9-1981.

Headnote:Lok Parisar (bakakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974 (MP) -- Ss. 2 (e) and 15 -- land or premises belonging to municipality -- not covered within the definition "public premises" as defined under S. 2 (e) -- suit for eviction from such land or premises- not barred under S. 15.

        The plaintiff Municipal Council, Barwaha (the present non-application has filed the suit against the defendant Omprakash (the present applicants for his eviction from the canteen leased out to him. Besides eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits have also been claimed. The defendant, resisting the plaintiffs claim, contended, amongst other things, that the suit, as laid, was not tenable, since the tenanted premises were "public premises" covered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam 1974 ( Act. No. 46 of 1974 ) (hereinafter referred to as, the Adbiniyam of 1974). The trial Court, deciding this primary objection as a preliminary issue, held vide its order impugned before me, that the canteen in question, owned by the municipal council and tenanted by the defendant, was not covered under the definition of public premises, as given in section 2 (e) of the Adhiniyam or 1974.

        Held : As a matter of fact, there is no scope for any controversy in the matter of interpretation public premises as defined in section 2 (e) of the Adhiniyam of 1974. more particularly clause (ii) thereof, because, the very same point as raised here, is found to have been .earlier decided by this Court in Jethanand v. Nagarpalika Mandsaur (1980 JLJ 494). In the matter as to, what particular premises and belonging to whom, are covered under public premises as per the particular clause (ii) of sub-section (e) of section 2 of the Adhiniyam of 1974. The following passage in Jethanand v. Nagarpalika Mandsaur (supra) deserves particular attention:

        "It may be noted that section 2 (b) of the said Act, which defines corporate authority, means any Company or Corporation referred to in clause (e) of this section. This definition has specifically excluded the words local authority. Besides while defining public premises under sub-section (e) of section 2 of the said Act, between the first clause and second clause there is a word and which further indicated that the legislature did not want to include the local authority in the definition of public premises. The words or a local authority and the coma preceding thereto clearly indicate that it is conjunctive, denoting thereby, that the local authorities are excluded from the word Corporation which finds place in the definition of public premises. Thus, .n my opinion, even if we read the printed English Text as it is, it cannot be interpreted to mean that local authority, namely the municipality in this case, is included in the said definition of public premises and consequently, I am not inclined to hold that according to section 15 of the said Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit for ejectment, and other reliefs".

        In view of the above, it is clear that the accommodation in question. belonging to Barwaha municipality, cannot be treated as "public premises" as defined in section 2 (e) of the Adhiniyam of 1974 and that the suit for eviction from the municipal land or canteen is not barred by section 15- of the Adhiniyam of 1974. This position is made further clear by the subsequent amendment in Adhiniyam of 1974, i. e. by the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam 1981 (No. 18 of 1981) whereby in the definition of "public premises". premises belonging to any Corporation established by or under a Central or State Act and owned or Controlled by the State Government or a local authority are shown to be included. It. at once, becomes manifest that the canteen in question is not of ownership of any Corporation established under the State Act and owned or controlled by a local authority. The canteen, instead of being owned by any Corporation, is actually owned by the local authority itself. i. e. by the Municipal council, Barwaha. Thus, there is no scope for doubt that the premises in question in the present suit art not covered by the provision of the Adhiniyam of 1974 as it initially existed, and also as subsequently amended by the Amending Adhiuiyam, 1981. 1980 JLJ 494 relied On. Revision dismissed.