The Rent Act does not protect tenants of public premises once the Public Premises Act applies, affirming eviction rights under the latter.

1. The petitioner in this case is a company, M/s. Indo Imex Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd. The company has brought this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of the Additional District Judge dated 19-1-1979.

2. These are the facts. The petitioner company occupies premises No. 12 (1/26-28) in a building known as Sunlight Building at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. This building belongs to the respondent, Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). After the take over of the Life Insurance business by the Government this Sunlight Building which belonged previously to Sunlight of India Insurance Company vested in the LIC on the passing of the Life Insurance Corporation Act in 1956.

3. LIC issued a notice dated 27-11-1975 under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the company with effect from 29-12-1975. The company did not vacate the premises. Proceedings were taken before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act). The Estate Officer ordered eviction of the company on 14-9-1978.

4. From the order of the Estate Officer the company appealed to the Additional District Judge under S.9(2) of the Act. Only one question was raised in appeal before the appellate officer. It was this: that the company even after the termination of the lease by the LIC was entitled to the protection of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (Rent Act) and that it could not be evicted under the Premises Act of 1971. The Additional District Judge rejected this contention. He dismissed the appeal. He affirmed the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer. No other point was taken before him.

5. From the order of the Additional Distrial Judge this writ petition has been filed.

6. The principal argument of Mr. R.L. Roshan, learned counsel for the company, is the same as was raised before the Additional District Judge. He says that the Rent Control Act of 1958 applies to the tenancy of the company and notwithstanding the termination of the tenancy by notice under S.106 of the T.P. Act the company will continue to be protected by the Rent Act. This question has now been authoritatively answered by the Supreme Court in Jain Ink Mfg. Co. v. L.I.C. of India , AIR 1981 SC 670 against the company. The Supreme Court has held that once the Public Premises Act of 1971 applies the Rent Act stands superseded.

7. That was a case where the appellant continued to occupy the property even after the Public Premises Act came into force and had in effect accepted the LIC as his landlord. In April 1977 the LIC gave notice under S.106 directing the appellant to vacate the premises before May 31, 1977. The appellant did not vacate. The LIC filed a complaint before the Estate Officer under the Premises Act. On the complaint the Estate Officer issued notice to the appellant. The appellant appeared before the Estate Officer. He raised certain preliminary objections to his jurisdiction to act in the matter. These objections the Estate Officer decided against him. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court against the order of the Estate Officer rejecting his preliminary objections. This Court dismissed the writ petition in limine though by a reasoned order. From the order of this Court an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Estate Officer was competent to proceed against the appellant under the Premises Act of 1971 and that the Rent Act did not apply.

8. It appears to me that Mr. Roshan is advancing substantially the same argu