1982 (4) TMI 288 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the premises in question are "public premises" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
2. Whether the leases in question are valid under Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 or Article 299(1) of the Constitution.
3. Whether the appellants can challenge the validity of the leases.
4. Whether the premises "belong" to the Central Government even if the leases are invalid.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the premises in question are "public premises" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971:
The primary issue was whether the premises are "public premises" under Section 2(e) of the Act. The premises were not owned or requisitioned by the Central Government but were taken on lease. The government argued that they "belong to" the Central Government due to their possession and payment of rent. The court examined the definition of "public premises" and concluded that the premises in question, being taken on lease by the Central Government, fall within the definition of "public premises" under the Act.

2. Whether the leases in question are valid under Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 or Article 299(1) of the Constitution:
The court analyzed whether the leases complied with the statutory requirements under Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, or Article 299(1) of the Constitution. It was established that the leases were monthly and did not require a registered deed under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court examined the relevant documents and correspondence, concluding that valid leases existed between the landlords and the Government of India, even if formal lease agreements were not executed.

3. Whether the appellants can challenge the validity of the leases:
The court held that the appellants, being allottees from the Government, were estopped from challenging the validity of the leases. It was established that the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority under the Act had jurisdiction to pass eviction orders once the factum of lease was established. The court further held that the validity of the leases could not be questioned by the appellants in a collateral proceeding.

4. Whether the premises "belong" to the Central Government even if the leases are invalid:
The court considered whether the premises could be said to "belong to" the Central Government due to its absolute right of user. It was concluded that the expression "belonging to" includes not only ownership but also rights lesser than ownership, such as an absolute right of user. The court held that the premises, being in the possession of the Government and allotted by it, could be considered to "belong to" the Central Government, thus falling within the definition of "public premises."

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed with costs. The court held that the premises in question are "public premises" within the meaning of the Act, the leases are valid, and the appellants cannot challenge their validity. Additionally, the premises "belong to" the Central Government, even if the leases were found to be invalid. The appellants were given time to vacate the premises by 31st July 1982. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.