PUBLIC PREMISES EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS ACT, 1971
(1) This Act may be called the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
(2) It extends to the whole of India.
(3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 16th day of September, 1958 except sections 11, 19 and 20 which shall come into force at once.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
1[***]
(b) “estate officer” means an officer appointed as such by the Central Government under section 3;
(c) “premises” means any land or any building or part of a building and includes—
(i) the garden, grounds and outhouses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of a building, and
(ii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof;
(d) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
2[(e) “public premises” means—
(1) any premises belongin
The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,—
(a) appoint such persons, being gazetted officers of Government 1[or of the Government of any Union Territory] or officers of equivalent rank of the 2[statutory authority], as it thinks fit, to be estate officers for the purposes of this Act: 3[***]
4[Provided that no officer of the Secretariat of the Rajya Sabha shall be so appointed except after consultation with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and no officer of the Secretariat of the Lok Sabha shall be so appointed except after consultation with Speaker of the Lok Sabha:
Provided further that an officer of a statutory authority shall only be appointed as an estate officer in respect of the public premises controlled by that authority; and]
&n
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 4 or section 5, if the estate officer, after making such inquiry as he deems expedient in the circumstances of the case, is satisfied that any persons who were allowed temporary occupation of any public premises are in unauthorised occupation of the said premises, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order for the eviction of such persons forthwith and, thereupon, if such persons refuse or fail to comply with the said order of eviction, he may evict them from the premises and take possession thereof and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.]
------------------------------
1. Ins. by Act 7 of 1994, sec. 4 (w.e.f. 1-6-1994).
------------------------------
(1) If the estate officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the estate officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.
(2) The notice shall—
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and
1[(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises,—
(i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof;
(1) No person shall—
(a) erect or place or raise any building or 2[any movable or immovable structure or fixture],
(b) display or spread any goods.
(c) bring or keep any cattle or other animal,
on, or against, or in front of, any public premises except in accordance with the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy such premises.
3[(2) Where any building or other immovable structure or fixture has been erected, placed or raised on any public premises in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), the estate officer may serve upon the person erecting such building or other structure or fixture, a notice requiring him either
The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is a special legislation enacted to provide for the speedy eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for the removal of unauthorised constructions. Section 5-A of the Act specifically empowers the Estate Officer to remove unauthorised constructions, structures, or fixtures erected on public premises. This commentary focuses on the interpretation, scope, and application of Section 5-A as elucidated by various judicial pronouncements.
Section 5-A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 empowers the Estate Officer to remove unauthorised constructions, etc. Sub-section (1) of Section 5-A provides that no person shall erect or place or raise any building or any movable or immovable structure or fixture on or in front of any public premises except in accordance with the authority conferred by or under any law for the time being in force. Sub-section (2) authorises the Estate Officer to serve a show-cause notice upon the person responsible for such unauthorised construction and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, may direct the removal of such unauthorised construction.
The essential ingredients of Section 5-A are:
The scope of Section 5-A is wide and covers:
The Act does not prescribe specific punishment under Section 5-A itself. However, Section 5-A read with other provisions of the Act provides for:
Unauthorised Construction - No person shall erect or place any building or structure on public premises except in accordance with authority; the Estate Officer may serve a show-cause notice for contravention of Section 5-A(1). [ANIL MAHAJAN VS UNION OF INDIA - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 2022]
Applicability to Existing Structures - Section 5-A applies not only to constructions raised after its introduction (22.12.1980) but also to existing structures, providing a speedy machinery for dealing with unauthorised constructions. [UNION OF INDIA VS ARUN SALUZA - 2015 0 Supreme(All) 165]
Overriding Effect - The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has an overriding effect on the Cantonments Act, 1924, as it provides a speedy process for eviction of unauthorised occupants from 'public premises'. [Anil Mahajan VS Estate Officer, 116 Taj Road Agra, and 2 Others - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 2353]
Notice Validity - The notice issued by the Estate Officer under Section 5-A(2) against illegal construction of a boundary wall surrounding a bungalow without permission, where the bungalow is under old grants managed by the Defence Estate Officer, is a valid notice. [Radha Soami Satsang Beas VS Union of India - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 2342]
Proper Service of Notice - The notice under Section 5-A(2) should be served upon the entity that erected the unauthorised structure; proceedings without proper service are not in accordance with law. [SANJAY MEDICOS VS DIRECTOR (ADMN. ) LNJP HOSPITAL - 2003 0 Supreme(Del) 86]
No Appeal Against Section 5-A Order - An order passed under Section 5-A of the Act is not appealable under Section 9 of the Act, as the legislature has provided for appeal only against orders under Sections 5, 5-B, 5-C, or 7. [YOGESH AGARWAL VS ESTATE OFFICER - 2016 0 Supreme(All) 40]
Complicated Title Questions - The Act is not intended to decide complicated questions of title and possession; authorities under the Act are not empowered to decide such disputes, which fall within the domain of the Civil Court. [Estate Officer & A. P. D. , Airports Authority of India VS T. Satya Suguna Devi - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 70]
Removal of Existing Structures - Section 5-A empowers the Estate Officer to remove existing unauthorised structures, rejecting the argument that it only applies to structures erected after its enactment. [Bharat Purohit Mithaiwala VS Union of India - 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 147]
Conclusive Evidence of Title - Entries in the General Land Register are conclusive evidence of title, and unauthorised constructions can be ordered for removal under the Public Premises Act. [Shruti Dhar Tripathi VS Government of India - 2015 0 Supreme(All) 3652]
Breach of Lease Conditions - Where a lease agreement contains conditions prohibiting alterations or additions without permission, violation of such terms justifies termination of lease and eviction under Section 5-A. [Bijay Nath Verma VS Sail/bokaro Steel Plant - 2019 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1698]
Object of the Act - The Act is enacted to deal with the mischief of rampant unauthorised occupation of public premises by providing a speedy machinery for eviction, safeguarding public interest by making available public premises belonging to the Central Government. [Prashant Vinodkumar Bansal VS Estate Officer - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 277]
Transfer Cannot Frustrate Eviction - The object of the Act would be frustrated if every time eviction is proposed, the unauthorised occupant transfers the premises to a third person; successive transfers cannot defeat the eviction measures. [Prashant Vinodkumar Bansal VS Estate Officer - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 277]
Summary Nature of Proceedings - Enquiry under the Act is summary in nature; revenue authorities are not substitutes for courts of competent civil jurisdiction and cannot decide complicated questions of title. [Thummalapally Bhagya Laxmi VS Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District - 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 386]
Jurisdictional Limits - The Estate Officer must act within the jurisdiction conferred by law; orders passed without jurisdiction and in blatant violation of the Act are liable to be set aside. [V. Manjula VS Mandal Revenue Officer - 2012 0 Supreme(AP) 911]
Natural Justice - No adverse order should be passed against a party without hearing them; judicial authorities must act fairly and provide opportunities for all parties to present their case. [A. Srinivas, S/o. Kumara Swamy VS State of Telangana - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 620]
Restriction on Religious Use - Terms and conditions of a government grant cannot be used to restrict freedom of religion and its practice guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India in proceedings under Section 5-A. [RADHA SOAMI SATSANG BEAS VS UNION OF INDIA - 2015 0 Supreme(All) 905]
Definition of Public Premises - Any premises belonging to or taken on lease by a Cantonment Board constitute 'public premises' under the Act, and Section 5-A empowers the Estate Officer to remove unauthorised construction on such premises. [Anil Mahajan VS Estate Officer, 116 Taj Road Agra, and 2 Others - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 2353]
Speedy Eviction Machinery - The Act aims to provide a speedy process for the eviction of unauthorised occupants from 'public premises' reflecting the legislative intent to safeguard public interest. [Anil Mahajan VS Estate Officer, 116 Taj Road Agra, and 2 Others - 2013 0 Supreme(All) 2353]
(1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under section 4 and 1[any evidence produced by him in support of the same and after personal hearing, if any, given under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4], the estate officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the estate officer may make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated, on such date as may be specified in the order, by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises.
(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction 1[on or before the date specified in the said order or within fifteen days of the date of its publicat
(1) It shall be lawful for the estate officer, at any time, before or after making an order of demolition under section 5B, to make an order directing the sealing of such erection or work or of the public premises in which such erection or work has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in such manner as may be prescribed, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, or for preventing any dispute as to the nature and extent of such erection or work.
(2) Where any erection or work or any premises in which any erection or work is being carried on has, or have been sealed, the estate officer may, for the purpose of demolishing such erection or work in accordance with the provisions of this Act, order such seal to be removed.
(3) No person shall remove such seal except—
&nb
(1) Where the erection of any building or execution of any work has been commenced, or is being carried on, or has been completed on any public premises by any person in occupation of such public premises under an authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer), and such erection of building or execution of work is in contravention of, or not authorised by, such authority, then, the estate officer may, in addition to any other action that may be taken under this Act or in accordance with the terms of the authority aforesaid, make an order, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that such erection or work shall be demolished by the person at whose instance the erection or work has been commenced, or is being carried on, or has been completed, within such period, as may be specified in the order 2[***]:
Provided that no order under this sub-section shall b
(1) Where any persons have been evicted from any public premises under section 5, 1[or where any building or other work has been demolished under section 5B], the estate officer may, after giving fourteen days’ notice to the Persons from whom possession of the public premises has been taken and after publishing the notice in at least one newspaper having circulation in the locality, remove or cause to be removed or dispose of by public auction any property remaining on such premises.
1[(1A) Where any goods, materials, cattle or other animal have been removed from any public premises under section 5A, the estate officer may, after giving fourteen days’ notice to the persons owning such goods, materials, cattle or other animal and after publishing the notice in at least one newspaper having circulation in the locality, dispose of, by public auction, such goods. materials, cattle or
(1) Where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises, the estate officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.
(2) Where any person is, or has at any time been, in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer may, having regard to such principles of assessment of damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account of the use and occupation of such premises and may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order.
1[(2A) While making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the estate officer may direct that the arrears of rent or, as the case may be, damages shall be payable together with simple interest a
An estate officer shall, for the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:—
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) any other matter which may be prescribed.
(1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the estate officer made in respect of any public premises under 1[section 5 or section 5B] 2[or section 5C]] or section 7 to an appellate officer who shall be the district judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years’ standing as the district judge may designate in this behalf.
(2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred,—
(a) in the case of an appeal from an order under section 5. 3[within twelve days] from the date of publication of the order under sub-section (1) of that section; 4[***]
(b) in the case of an appeal from an order 5[under section 5B or
section 7, within twelve days] from the date
Legal Comments
"Introduction" - The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) provides a fast-track framework for evicting unauthorised occupants from public premises, with Section 9 establishing a statutory appeal mechanism to an Appellate Officer (who is not a court) and limiting recourse to other fora; the scheme emphasizes summary proceedings and finality of orders. - [N. P. BERRY VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPOTATION], [ON THE DEATH OF PANMATI DEVI, HER LEGAL HEIR VS UNION OF INDIA]
"What Section Says" - Section 9 permits an appeal against an Estate Officer order to an Appellate Officer and entitles the Appellate Officer to stay enforcement in appropriate cases under Section 9(3); the emphasis is on a statutorily created, time-sensitive remedy rather than a conventional judicial appeal. - [N. P. BERRY VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPOTATION], [UNION OF INDIA VS GULAM NABI AZAD]
"Nature of Appellate Authority" - The Appellate Officer under Section 9 is not a persona designata court; it operates within the Act’s special framework, and remedies such as appeals or revisions to the High Court are limited or non-existent except as expressly provided; this reinforces the Act’s specialized dispute-resolution path. - [N. P. BERRY VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPOTATION], [Life Insurance Corporation of India VS Nandini J. Shah]
"Essential ingredients" - The process requires proper service of notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a reasoned order; show-cause-like proceedings and compliance with statutory procedure are central to validity and to the maintainability of any challenge. - [ROHTASH KUMAR VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY], [DDA VS Kumud Makhija (Deceased Through Lrs)]
"Scope of Section 9—Appeals within the Act" - Section 9 contemplates appeals only against certain Estate Officer orders (notably under sections 5, 5B, 5C, and 7), and not against orders under Section 5A, which has given rise to important clarifications on appealability. - [Life Insurance Corporation of India VS S. Krishnachand Chordia], [Yogesh Agarwal VS Estate Officer]
"Scope of Section 9—Limited grounds" - The right to appeal under Section 9 is statutory and not all Enabling Orders are appealable; the legislature has restricted the scope of Section 9 to specific provisions, excluding others such as Section 5A (as clarified in reference judgments). - [Yogesh Agarwal VS Estate Officer]
"Remand power" - The appellate authority has an inherent power to remand, but remand for fresh evidence should be exceptional and conducted in conformity with established legal principles; improper or excessive remand can be quashed on review. - [PREM LAL VS ESTATE OFFICER]
"Stay of eviction" - Under Section 9(3), an appellate stay can be granted, but it must be exercised judicially with consideration of merits, balance of convenience, and potential hardship; failure to apply judicial discretion can be grounds for scrutiny. - [UNION OF INDIA VS GULAM NABI AZAD], [UNION OF INDIA VS GOLAM NABI AZAD]
"Damages and recovery provisions" - The Act contemplates recovery of damages or arrears (including licence-related charges) through Section 7, and disputes over damages or licence-fee adjustments often surface in Section 9 proceedings; non-payment of such amounts can sustain eviction or affect related orders. - [Gift Centre (Khushal) VS Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. ]
"Notice/Service to occupants" - Service of notice to all concerned occupants can be deemed valid where adult family members have received the notice, illustrating practicalities of service in Section 9 proceedings; improper service can undermine proceedings. - [ROHTASH KUMAR VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY]
"Subletting and occupancy findings" - Courts regularly examine whether subletting or unauthorised occupancy occurred; where subletting is proved, eviction is upheld; challenges often focus on evidentiary findings and the fairness of the related proceedings. - [Kanhya Lal VS Estate Officer, Directorate of Estate], [UOI VS SUNIL DUTT]
"Civil court jurisdiction and finality" - The PP Act’s framework ousts the civil court’s jurisdiction in many eviction questions, emphasizing finality of Estate Officer and Appellate Authority orders and limiting recourse to statutory channels; where appropriate, remedies under Article 227 may be considered but within narrow bounds. - [ON THE DEATH OF PANMATI DEVI, HER LEGAL HEIR VS UNION OF INDIA], [N. P. BERRY VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPOTATION]
"5A-appealability controversy (Full Bench reference)" - A pivotal Full Bench reference held that an order under Section 5A is not appealable under Section 9, and that Sanjay Agarwal’s proposition on this point was incorrect; this clarifies the Act’s appealability map. - [Yogesh Agarwal VS Estate Officer], [PANKAJ KUMAR AGARWAL VS UNION OF INDIA (UOI)]
"Designation and transfer of appellate power" - District Judges can designate other judicial officers to hear Section 9 appeals; such transfers are legally permissible and valid, reflecting the Act’s design to flexibly utilize capable judiciary within the appellate chain. - [Estate Officer-Cum-Cantonment Executive Officer VS IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge, Allahabad], [Badri Nath Gupta VS Estates Officer (Controller Of Aerodrome Delhi Region)], [PANKAJ KUMAR AGARWAL VS UNION OF INDIA (UOI)]
"Remedial path for territorial/designational questions" - Appellate jurisdiction under Section 9 can be revisited or reviewed in appropriate higher fora under the shape of revisional or supervisory remedies (e.g., High Court under Section 115 CPC in certain contexts), subject to statutory boundaries. - [Jinda Ram VS Union Of India (Uoi)]
"Cabinet Committee and allotment guidance" - Decisions touching allotment guidelines and approvals (e.g., Cabinet Committee on Accommodation) influence Section 9 disputes where occupancy, eligibility, or damages arise from regulatory allotment decisions; such considerations may affect liability for damages, entitlements, or regularisation. - [J. C. PANT VS UNION OF INDIA]
"Transfer of appeals between jurisdictions" - Inter-jurisdictional transfers of Section 9 appeals (e.g., from District Judge to Addl. District Judge) have been upheld where designated under the Act, clarifying that the appellate framework permits such designation without vitiating jurisdiction. - [Badri Nath Gupta VS Estates Officer (Controller Of Aerodrome Delhi Region)], [Estate Officer-Cum-Cantonment Executive Officer VS IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge, Allahabad]
"Remedial limitation on appeals" - The statutory right to appeal under Section 9 is constrained to the Act’s named provisions; even where a petition challenges a broader order, the remedy lies within the Act’s defined appellate channels rather than general writs, except where explicitly allowed. - [Yogesh Agarwal VS Estate Officer], [ON THE DEATH OF PANMATI DEVI, HER LEGAL HEIR VS UNION OF INDIA]
"Limited recourse via High Court" - The High Court’s supervisory or revisional jurisdiction over Section 9 orders is restricted and does not automatically accommodate general appeals; the appellate regime under the Act is primarily self-contained. - [N. P. BERRY VS DELHI TRANSPORT CORPOTATION], [Hari Ram vs Union of India]
"Important procedural caution" - Courts have consistently cautioned that invoking the wrong forum or pursuing non-statutory remedies can lead to dismissal or remand for proper appellation under Section 9; compliance with the Act’s path is essential for maintainability. - [MANASH RANJAN PATHAK VS The Union Of India, rep. By The Secretary To The Ministry Of India Railway], [LT Colonel Vineet Mehta VS Estate Officer]
Note: Each bullet point references specific judgments or statements from the provided sources to ground the statements in the actuarial jurisprudence surrounding Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by an estate officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to an offence under section 11 as if it were a cognizable offence—
(i) for the purposes of investigation of such offence, and
(ii) for the purposes of matters other than—
(1) matters referred to in section 42 of that Code, and
(2) arrest of a person except on the complaint of, or upon information received from,—
(a) a Group A officer as may be appointed by the Central Government, in the case of an offence in relation to the public premises specified in sub-clause (1) of clause (e) of section 2;
(b) an officer equivalent to the rank of a Group A officer of the Central Government or where it is
1[(1) If any person unlawfully occupies any public premises, he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that a person who, having been lawfully in occupation of any public premises by virtue of any authority (whether by way of grant, allotment or by any other mode whatsoever) continues to be in occupation of such premises after such authority has ceased to be valid, shall not be guilty of such offence.]
2[(2)] If any person who has been evicted from any public premises under this Act again occupies the premises without authority for such occupation, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year. or with fine which may extend to 3[five thousand rupees], or with both.
&n
If the estate officer has reason to believe that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, the estate officer or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf may require those persons or any other person to furnish information relating to the names and other particulars of the persons in occupation of the public premises and every person so required shall be bound to furnish the information in his possession.
(1) Where any person against whom any proceeding for the determination of arrears of rent or for the assessment of damages 1[or for the determination of the amount payable by way of interest on such arrears of rent or damages] is to be or has been taken dies before the proceeding is taken or during the pendency thereof, the proceeding may be taken, as the case may be, continued against the heirs or legal representatives of that person.
1[(1A) Where any person from whom any cost of removal of any building or other structure or fixture, or, as the case may be, any goods, cattle or other animal is to be recovered under sub-section (2) 2[or sub-section (3)] of section 5A, or any expenses of demolition are to be recovered under sub-section (5) of section 5B, dies before any proceeding is taken for the recovery of such cost or during the pendency thereof, the proceeding may be taken or,
If any person refuses or fails to pay 1[the expenses of demolition payable under sub-section (5) of section 5B or] the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 7 or the damages payable under sub-section (2) 2[for the interest determined under sub-section (2A)] of that section or the costs awarded to the Central Government or the 3[statutory authority] under sub-section (5) of section 9 or any 4[portion of such rent, damages, expenses, interest] or costs, within the time, if any, specified therefor in the order relating thereto, the estate officer may issue a certificate for the amount due to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same as an arrear of land revenue.any person refuses or fails to pay 1[the expenses of demolition payable under sub-section (5) of section 5B or] the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 7 or the damages payable under sub-section (2) 2[for the interest dete
No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of—
(a) the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises, or
(b) the removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal from any public premises under section 5A, or
(c) the demolition of any building or other structure made, or ordered to be made, under section 5B, or
2[(cc) the sealing of any erection or work or of any public premises under section 5C, or]
(d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 7 or damages payable under sub-section (2), or interest payable under sub-section (2A), of that section, or
&
No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or the 1[statutory authority] or the appellate officer or the estate officer in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder.
----------------------------
1. Subs. by Act 61 of 1980, sec. 2, for “corporate authority” (w.e.f. 20-12-1980).
----------------------------
The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act shall, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, be exercisable also by a State Government or an officer of the State Government.
(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
(a) the form of any notice required or authorised to be given under this Act and the manner in which it may be served.
(b) the holding of inquiries under this Act;
(c) the distribution and allocation of work to estate officers and the transfer of any proceeding pending before an estate officer to another estate officer;
(d) the procedure to be followed in taking possession of public premises;
&nb
The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (32 of 1958) is hereby repealed.
Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, anything done or any action taken (including rules or orders made, notices issued evictions ordered or effected, damages assessed, rents or damages or costs recovered and proceedings initiated) or purported to have been done or taken under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (32 of 1958) (hereafter in this section referred to as the 1958 Act) shall be deemed to be as valid and effective as if such thing or action was done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act which, under sub-section (3) of section 1 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 16th day of September, 1958, and accordingly—
(a) no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintained or continued in any court for the refund of any rent or damages or costs recovered under the 1958, Act where such refund ha
Legal Comments
Definition - Section 20 PP Act 1971 - Section 20 validates actions under 1958 Act as if done under 1971 Act - [C. J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LIMITED VS NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE]
Retrospective operation - 1971 Act retrospective effect from 16 Sept 1958 for all provisions except sections 11, 19, 20 - [Union of India VS C. Baljee]
Bar to stay/arbitration - Section 15 PP Act bars courts/arbitration-related stays or proceedings in eviction/damages; arbitration under Arbitration Act not barred per se - but Section 15 creates bar on courts for eviction/damages actions, not necessarily on arbitration itself - [KESAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA]
Jurisdiction of Estate Officer - PP Act 1971 Section 4(1) show-cause; Section 7 authorizes eviction and damages; Section 9 appeals; Estate Officer has jurisdiction over eviction and damages in public premises cases - [UNION OF INDIA VS S. M. AGGARWAL], [Haran Chandra Pal VS Madan Mohan Banikhya]
Public premises defined - Section 2(e) PP Act; premises belonging to Central Government or under management of Government entities; includes certain government bodies and Cantonment Boards; determines applicability of PP Act vs Rent Control/TP Act - [Suman Purohit VS VIIIth Addl. District Judge, Agra], [ORIENTAL BUILDING AND FURNISHING COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA]
Supremacy over Rent Control Act - In cases involving public premises, PP Act overrides Rent Control Act where premises are public - Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank; Hari Singh v. Military Estate Officer cited - [Union of India VS C. Baljee], [011000740... (see C. J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LIMITED VS NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE)]
Limitation and arbitration - Section 20 PP Act provides validation; Section 15 bars courts from entertaining eviction/rent-related actions; Arbitration petitions under Indian Arbitration Act may proceed but courts should not entertain eviction claims under PP Act - [ORIENTAL BUILDING AND FURNISHING COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA], [KESAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA]
Notice requirements under Section 4 - Notice must be for a date not earlier than 10 days; failure may violate opportunity of hearing but Section 4(2) requires hearing; Section 4 is directory for reasonable notice; non-compliance can be contested but court may uphold if adequate opportunity existed - [INDRAJ VS COLLECTOR, DELHI]
Natural justice and hearing - Principles of natural justice apply; failure to provide notice/hearing on inspection reports can render revisional orders void; “no one shall be condemned unheard” applicable in PP Act context - [Bhajan Singh And Sons (Huf) VS Chandigarh Administration U. T. ], [C. J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LIMITED VS NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE]
Forfeiture/penalty provisions - Forfeiture/penalty under PP Act and related capital/Chandigarh rules upheld where compliance with licensing provisions and show-cause processes occurred; non-payment leads to eviction and penalties/damages under Sections 5, 7, 8 - [Madan Lal VS Hmt Limited], [Devinder Singh Pannu VS Chandigarh Administration]
Arbitrary or ultra vires orders - Appellate quashing of eviction orders may be set aside if PP Act validates actions; secours through Section 20 to deem actions under 1958 Act as valid under 1971 Act - [Union of India VS C. Baljee], [TIRLOK CHAND VS ESTATE OFFICER]
Eviction of unauthorised occupants of Central government/public premises - PP Act applies to occupants post-lease expiry; Rent/possession disputes fall within PP Act's self-contained regime; Rent Control cannot override for public premises - [Haran Chandra Pal VS Madan Mohan Banikhya], [INDO IMEX AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA. ]
Section 6 right to dispose of goods - Estate Officer may seize and dispose of goods left by unauthorized occupants on public premises; independent of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 provisions - [BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA VS APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ]
Scope of Section 4 vs 5-A(2) - Proper initiation is via Section 4 show-cause; Section 5-A(2) for removal of unauthorized constructions requires proper basis; improper invocation can be quashed - [00900010197], [01100029567]
Retrospective validation - 1971 Act validates acts under 1958 Act; Section 20 ensures actions remain valid; courts cannot nullify these actions merely because prior Act was found unconstitutional - [Union of India VS C. Baljee], [C. J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LIMITED VS NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE]
Suhas H. Pophale distinction - Supreme Court refined applicability to central government premises; not all premises of government entities automatically fall under PP Act; depends on when premises became public premises after merger/ownership transfer - [Vijai Shree Private Limited VS Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Kolkata], [012000... not in list]
Section 2(g) unauthorized occupant - Continuance after authority to occupy expires or is determined constitutes unauthorized occupation; applies to both tenants/licensees and transferees unless protected by other statutes - [TIRLOK CHAND VS ESTATE OFFICER], [009000957... (see 00900034772)]
Section 9 Appeal mechanics - Appellate Authority can confirm, vary, or reverse; writs challenging appellate orders can be quashed if misapplied legal standards; PP Act allows fresh disposal on remand - [Chander Kanta VS Union Of India], [National Textile Corporation (DP&R) Ltd. VS Punjab National Bank]
Prior rights and “deemed to be public premises” timing - For premises that became public premises due to government ownership changes, PP Act may apply only from the date they become public premises; earlier occupation under Rent Acts may receive protection - [Vijai Shree Private Limited VS Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Kolkata], [009000476... not in list]
Damages/penalties assessment - Section 7/8 procedures govern damages; Rule 8 procedural safeguards; references to telescopic method and market rates upheld where properly applied; evidence must support damages assessment - [P. S. Hooda (deceased) Through: Legal Representative/wife Mrs. Anita Hooda VS Union Of India And Another], [National Textile Corporation (DP&R) Ltd. VS Punjab National Bank]
Res judicata and civil decrees - Civil decrees on unauthorized occupation may be binding in PP proceedings; Section 4/Section 9 interplay may preclude contradiction with existing civil judgments - [INDRAJ VS COLLECTOR, DELHI], [ORIENTAL BUILDING AND FURNISHING COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI VS UNION OF INDIA]
Interplay with other Acts - PP Act interacts with Major Port Trusts Act, Rent Control Acts, Transfer of Property Act; Supreme Court cases clarify hierarchy and where PP Act prevails - [Prem Chand VS Life Insurance Corporation of India], [00900034792]
Redemption/regularization context - Writs allow fresh action with compliance directions; regularization policies do not override statutory terms when PP Act governs the premises - [01100024977], [02700037955]
Practical consequence - Court’s role often trims into ensuring due process, natural justice, and proper application of PP Act; where valid, eviction and damages orders stand, with limited scope for civil relief or stay under arbitration unless explicitly permitted - [Haran Chandra Pal VS Madan Mohan Banikhya], [C. J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LIMITED VS NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE]
Notable caution - When premises are not clearly public premises (e.g., pre-1958 occupancy protections or non-public government property), courts will scrutinize applicability and potential reliance on Rent Control or interim protection - [Union of India VS C. Baljee], [00900046872]
Elevate your legal practice with advanced AI-driven research and drafting solutions. Experience unmatched efficiency, precision, and security, tailored exclusively for legal professionals.