1987 (11) TMI 377 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Public Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
2. Interpretation of the term "public building" u/s 3(o) of the Rent Act.
3. Legislative amendments and their impact on the case.
4. Validity of the eviction suit filed by the respondent.

Summary:

1. Applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Public Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972:
The appellant contended that the suit for eviction was barred by the provisions of the Rent Act. The respondent argued that the premises were not covered by the Rent Act due to an exclusion clause in s. 2(1)(a).

2. Interpretation of the term "public building" u/s 3(o) of the Rent Act:
The definition of "public building" in s. 3(o) includes buildings taken on lease by the Government. The building in question, leased by the State Government, falls within this definition, making it exempt from the Rent Act as per s. 2(1)(a).

3. Legislative amendments and their impact on the case:
The Rent Act underwent several amendments:
- The original 1972 Act excluded buildings belonging to the Government or local authority.
- The 1976 amendment expanded the exclusion to "public buildings."
- The 1977 Ordinance attempted to narrow the exclusion but lapsed.
- The 1983 Ordinance revived the 1977 amendment, effective from 18.5.1983.
- The 1985 Act regularized these changes.

The appellant argued that the 1976 amendment intended only to exclude buildings where the Government was the landlord. However, the Court found that the language of the 1976 amendment was broader, including buildings leased by the Government.

4. Validity of the eviction suit filed by the respondent:
The Court held that the respondent's remedy to recover possession lay under the general law, not the Rent Act, as the premises were a "public building." The trial court and High Court were correct in decreeing the suit for eviction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction suit. The interpretation of "public building" included buildings leased by the Government, exempting them from the Rent Act. The legislative history and amendments supported this broader interpretation, and the respondent's suit for recovery of possession was valid. The decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Punjab National Bank v. Sugan Chand was overruled on this point. No order regarding costs was made.