Does the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 override State Rent Control legislation for eviction of unauthorised occupants from premises under government or public entities?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• The PP Act, 1971 overrides State Rent Control Acts for eviction of unauthorised occupants of premises defined under Section 2(e), regardless of tenancy start date.
• Persons in “unauthorised occupation” per Section 2(g) cannot claim protection under any Rent Control legislation.
• The decision reaffirms the Constitutional Bench in Ashoka Marketing (1990) and explicitly overrules the two-Judge bench in Suhas H. Pophale (2014).
• Confirms that termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act renders occupation “unauthorised” for PP Act purposes.
• Emphasises that smaller benches must follow larger-bench precedents under the doctrine of stare decisis.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Identified direct conflict between the two-Judge bench in Suhas H. Pophale and the Constitutional Bench in Ashoka Marketing, leading to three-Judge reference.
2. Analyzed definitions of “public premises” (Section 2(e)) and “unauthorised occupation” (Section 2(g)) in the PP Act.
3. Reviewed scope of State Rent Control Acts and non-obstante clauses in both statutes.
4. Applied principles of statutory interpretation: later special law (PP Act) abrogates earlier contrary law (Rent Control), and generalia specialibus non derogant.
5. Examined purpose and policy of summary eviction under PP Act vs. detailed procedure under Rent Control Acts.
6. Held PP Act provisions override Rent Control Acts for eviction of unauthorised occupants of public premises, irrespective of tenancy date.
7. Reiterated binding force of Ashoka Marketing and Jain Ink precedents; overruled Suhas H. Pophale as inconsistent with settled law.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (LIC & other public entities)

• Ashoka Marketing (1990) and Suhas H. Pophale (2014) conflict; distinction by tenancy date is artificial and unsupported by Constitutional Bench.
• PP Act, 1971 must apply prospectively and retrospectively to all premises falling under Section 2(e), without exemption based on when tenancy began.
• Two-Judge bench in Pophale misread Ashoka Marketing; State Rent Control Acts cannot limit summary eviction under PP Act.

Respondent (Tenant)

• High Court was correct: 1999 Maharashtra Rent Control Act excludes respondents under Section 3(1)(b), so PP Act cannot apply.
• If neither Rent Control nor PP Act applies, eviction must proceed before the Court of Small Causes under Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.
• Continued tenancy post-agreement and regular rent payments under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act avoid “unauthorised occupation.”
• Reliance on Section 15A of the 1947 Rent Control Act to bar application of PP Act.

Factual Background

The Life Insurance Corporation, a government-owned statutory corporation, owns Flat G-B, Jeevan Jyot Building, Mumbai, let to Vita Pvt Ltd since April 1957. The Public Premises Act, 1971 (retrospective to September 1958) applies to premises owned by public entities. Vita defaulted on rent; LIC issued a termination notice on 24 March 2009 and filed eviction under Sections 5 & 7 of the PP Act. The Estate Officer ordered eviction on 27 March 2012; the City Civil Court upheld it, but the Bombay High Court quashed it relying on Suhas H. Pophale. The Supreme Court granted special leave, referred the conflict for a three-Judge bench decision.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 1(3) PP Act: retrospective effect from 16 September 1958.
• Section 2(e) PP Act: definition of “public premises” includes premises belonging to or taken on lease by government companies and corporations.
• Section 2(g) PP Act: defines “unauthorised occupation” to include occupation after expiry or determination of authority to occupy.
• Sections 4–5 PP Act: summary eviction procedure before an Estate Officer, with show-cause notice and power to use force.
• Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, 1882: mode for terminating tenancy, making subsequent occupation unauthorised under PP Act.
• State Rent Control Acts (Bombay 1947; Maharashtra 1999; Delhi 1958): special statutes governing landlord-tenant relations, but overridden by PP Act for public premises.

Alert Indicators

• 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overrules Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2014)
• ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms Ashoka Marketing Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (1990) and M/s Jain Ink Mfg. Co. vs. LIC & Anr. (1980)
• 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Resolves conflict between two-Judge bench in Suhas H. Pophale and Constitutional Bench in Ashoka Marketing Ltd.