Case ID: 4284

Judgment:
Civil Appeal No. 224 of 1979. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 6 12 1978 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 1361/78. P. Parameswara Rao and R. Nagarathnam for the Appellant. K. Parasaran	 Sol. Genl.	 V. Gauri Shanker	 K.L. Hathi and Mrs. Hemantika Wahi for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI	 J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a Division Bench judgment dated December 6	 1978 of the High Court of Delhi and arises under the following circumstances. The appellant was inducted as a tenant by one Mithanlal who was the owner of the premises in question and the rent payable at the time of the tenancy was Rs 55 per month. The premises were	 however	 purchased by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short	 LIC) at a court auction on July 19	 1958 and the appellant in view of the same attorned to the new landlord	 namely	 the LIC. The Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act ') came into force on February 9	 1959 and on July 24	 1969 the new landlord gave a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the appellant determining the tenancy. This notice	 however	 was subsequently withdrawn and after some correspondence with the appellant the rent was increased by the LIC from Rs. 55 to Rs. 125 per month. Sometime towards the end of July 1966	 the LIC gave a fresh notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act purporting to determine the tenancy. Thereafter	 there were some parleys between the LIC and the appellant and ultimately the LIC agreed to accept the enhanced rent of Rs. 300 per month from the appellant with effect from December 1	 1976. On April 23	 1977 the LIC gave another notice under section 106 superseding the previous notice and directing the appellant to vacate the premises on or before May 31	 1977. As the appellant did not vacate the premises	 the LIC filed a complaint with respondent No. 2	 the Estate Officer	 LIC under the provisions of the (hereinafter referred to as the 'Premises Act '). Thereafter	 the second respondent issued a notice to the appellant under section 4(1) of the Premises Act to show cause why the appellant be not evicted. The appellant appeared before the Estate Officer and raised certain preliminary objections which having been decided against him	 the appellant filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court against the order of the Estate Officer and reiterated the preliminary objections taken by him before 501 the Estate Officer. After considering the preliminary objections which mainly related to the question of jurisdiction of the Estate officer to proceed under the Premises Act	 the High Court overruled all the objections and dismissed the writ petition in limine	 though by a reasoned order. Hence	 this appeal to the Supreme Court. Before dealing with the contention raised by counsel for the respondent we might mention that the proceedings before the Estate officer under the Premises Act have only been stayed and not yet decided on merits because the appellant wanted the Estate officer to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. In support of the appeal	 Mr. Parmeshwar Rao submitted three main contentions before us. In the first place	 he submitted that the provisions of the Premises Act would have no application to the present premises because the appellant could not be described as an unauthorised occupant as he had entered into possession of the premises long before they were purchased by the LIC. It was argued that the condition precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction by the Estate officer was that the appellant must be an unauthorised occupant	 and if the possession of the appellant was lawful	 though the property changed hands subsequently	 the appellant could not be dubbed as an unauthorised occupant. In this connection	 reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Rajkumar Devindera Singh & Anr. vs State of Punjab & Ors We have gone through the decision cited before us and we find that the provisions of the Punjab Act	 which was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in that case	 were substantially and materially different from section 2(2)(g) of the Premises Act which defines unauthorised occupation. Mr. Rao	 however	 strongly relied on the following observations made by this Court in the case supra: "If the appellants were in possession before the date of the sale of the property to the Government	 it could not be said that the appellants entered into possession of public premises	 for	 at the time when they were in occupation of the property	 the property was not public premises. Then it was either the joint family property or the property of the Maharaja	 namely	 Yadavindra Singh. The property was not public premises before it was sold to the Government. " If these observations of this Court are torn from the context they may presumably support the argument of the appellant but we have to read these observations in the light of the specific provisions of the Punjab	 Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act	 502 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Punjab Act '). Relevant portion of section 3 of that Act may be extracted thus: "For purposes of this Act	 a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any public premises: (a) where he has whether before or after the commencement of this Act	 entered into possession thereof otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment	 lease or grant." [Emphasis Ours] It would be seen that before a person could be said to be in an unauthorised occupation	 the Act required the following conditions: (1) that the occupant had entered into possession before or after the commencement of the Act. (2) that he had entered into such possession otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment	 lease or grant. That Act	 therefore	 lays special stress on only one point	 namely	 the entry into possession. Thus	 if the entry into possession had taken place prior to the passing of the Act	 then obviously the occupant concerned would not be an unauthorised occupant. What made the occupancy unauthorised was his entry into possession at a particular point of time. It was in construing these provisions that this Court held that if the appellants in that case were in possession before the sale of the property to the Government	 their entry into possession could not be said to be unauthorised. These observations	 however	 would have absolutely no application to the instant case where section 2(2)(g) defines unauthorised occupation thus: "unauthorised occupation '	 in relation to any public premises	 means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation	 and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever." To begin with	 it is manifest that section 2(2)(g) does not use the word 'possession ' or the words 'entry into possession ' at any point of time at all. The section merely requires occupation of any public premises. Entry into possession connotes one single terminus	 viz.	 the point of time when a person enters into possession or occupies the property whereas occupation is a continuous process which starts right from the point of time when the person enters into possession or occupies the premises and continues until he leaves the premises. What is germane for the purpose of interpretation of section 2(2)(g) is whether or not the person concerned was in occupation of the public premises when the 503 Premises Act was passed. In the instant case	 it is not disputed that the appellant continued to occupy the property even after the Premises Act came into force and in fact accepted the LIC as his landlord. In these circumstances	 therefore	 the case of the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of the definition of 'unauthorised occupation ' as contemplated by section 2(2)(g). There is yet another aspect of the matter which distinguishes the present case from the language employed in the Punjab Act. Section 2(2)(g) is an inclusive definition and consists of two separate limbs (1) where a person is in occupation in relation to any public premises without authority for such occupation	 and (2) even if the possession or occupation of the tenant continues after the lease is determined. In the instant case	 the lease was doubtless determined by the landlord by a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act whose validity for purposes of deciding the question of law has not been questioned by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore	 there can be no doubt that the appellant was in unauthorised occupation of the premises once the lease was determined. The second limb mentioned in section 2(2)(g) is conspicuously absent from the provisions of the Punjab Act. For these reasons	 we overrule the first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant and we hold	 agreeing with the High Court	 that the appellant was undoubtedly in unauthorised occupation of the premises. The second contention put forward by Mr. Rao was that in view of the provisions of the Rent Act which override the provisions of the Premises Act	 section 14 of the Rent Act completely bars recovery of possession of any premises except in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rent Act. It was contended by Mr. Rao that although the Premises Act was passed in 1971	 it has been given retrospective effect from 16th September 1958 and	 therefore	 should be construed as a law having been passed in 1958 and as the Rent Act was passed in 1959 it overrides the Premises Act. We are	 however	 unable to agree with this argument. In the first place	 the Premises Act was passed in 1971 and came into force on the 23rd of August 1971	 that is to say	 long after the Rent Act was passed in 1959. The mere fact that by virtue of a fiction the Premises Act was given retrospective effect from 1958 will not alter the date when the Premises Act was actually passed	 that is to say August 23	 1971. In these circumstances	 therefore	 the Premises Act being subsequent to the Rent Act would naturally prevail over and override the provisions of the Rent Act. It was further contended by Mr. Rao that the Rent Act being a special law as compared to the Premises Act	 it will override the Premises Act without going into the question as to which of the two Acts were prior in point of time. In support of his contention the 504 counsel relied on a decision of this Court in Sarwan Singh & Anr. vs Kasturi Lal where this Court observed as follows: "When two or more laws operate in the same field and each contains a non obstante clause stating that its provisions will override those of any other law	 stimulating and incisive problems of interpretation arise. Since statutory interpretation has no conventional protocol	 cases of such conflict have to be decided in reference to the object and purpose of the laws under consideration." (emphasis supplied) It is true that in both the Acts there is a non obstante clause but the question to be determined is whether the non obstante clauses operate in the same field or have two different spheres though there may be some amount of overlapping. The observations cited above clearly lay down that in such cases the conflict should be resolved by reference to the object and purpose of the laws in consideration. In Shri Ram Narain vs The Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd.	(2) this Court made the following observations: "It is therefore	 desirable to determine the overriding effect of one or the other of the relevant provisions in these two Acts	 in a given case	 on much broader considerations of the purpose and policy underlying the two Acts and the clear intendment conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions therein. " In the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases we would test the position in the present case. So far as the Premises Act is concerned it operates in a very limited field in that it applies only to a limited nature of premises belonging only to particular sets of individuals	 a particular set of juristic persons like companies	 corporations or the Central Government. Thus	 the Premises Act has a very limited application. Secondly	 the object of the Premises Act is to provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises by a summary procedure so that the premises may be available to the authorities mentioned in the Premises Act which constitute a class by themselves. That the authorities to which the Premises Act applies are a class by themselves is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant as even in the case of Northern India Caterers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs State of Punjab & Anr. such authorities were held to form a class and	 therefore	 immune from challenge on article 14 of the Constitution. Similarly	 the summary procedure prescribed by the Premises Act is also not violative of Art	 14 as held by this Court in 505 Maganlal Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.(1). Thus	 it would appear that both the scope and the object of the Premises Act is quite different from that of the Rent Act. The Rent Act is of much wider application than the Premises Act inasmuch as it applies to all private premises which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in section 2 of the Premises Act. The object of the Rent Act is to afford special protection to all the tenants or private landlords or landlords who are neither a Corporation nor Government or Corporate Bodies. It would be seen that even under the Rent Act	 by virtue of an amendment a special category has been carved out under section 25B which provides for special procedure for eviction to landlords who require premises for their personal necessity. Thus	 section 25B itself becomes a special law within the Rent Act. On a parity of reasoning	 therefore	 there can be no doubt that the Premises Act as compared to the Rent Act	 which has a very broad spectrum	 is a Special Act and overrides the provisions of the Rent Act. It was also suggested by Mr. Rao that in view of section 3(a) of the Rent Act	 which is extracted below	 it would appear that the intention of the legislature in passing the Rent Act was merely to exclude from its operation only premises belonging to the Government and if the intention was to exclude other premises belonging to corporate Bodies or Corporations	 then section 3(a) should have been differently worded: "3. Nothing in this Act shall apply: (a) to any premises belonging to the Government. " This in our opinion	 does not advance the case of the appellant any further because once the Premises Act becomes a special Act dealing with premises belonging to Central Government	 Corporations and other statutory Bodies	 the Rent Act stands superseded. We have to consider the provisions of the two Acts	 they having been passed by the same legislature	 viz.	 Parliament	 and the rule of harmonious construction would have to apply in such cases. For these reasons	 we overrule the second preliminary objection taken by the appellant. Lastly	 it was argued that apart from the Rent Act	 section 19 of the (hereinafter referred to as the 'Slums Act ')	 which also would have to be construed as a Special Act applying only to such places which are declared to be slums under the Act	 would override the provisions of both the 506 Rent Act and the Premises Act. This argument appears to us to be without substance. The Slums Act was passed as far back as 1956 and the Premises Act was subsequent to the Slums Act and would	 therefore	 prevail over the Slums Act. Relevant portion of section 19 of the Slums Act may be extracted thus: "19. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force	 no person shall	 except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority	 (a) institute	 after the commencement of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act	 1964 any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area;" A perusal of section 19 of the Slums Act clearly shows that it is in direct conflict with the Premises Act which expressly provides for the forum for evicting persons in unauthorised occupation of premises which fell in section 2 of the Premises Act. The Premises Act being subsequent to the Slums Act	 as amended in 1964	 and again being a special Act having a very limited sphere	 must necessarily override the Slums Act on the same lines of reasoning as we have indicated in the case of the Rent Act. For these reasons	 therefore	 the last contention put forward by the counsel for the appellant is also overruled. The High Court had also overruled all these preliminary objections more or less on the same reasons as given by us though not in such details. It is	 however	 not necessary for us to remand the matter to the trial court for decision of the case on merits because the Solicitor General having agreed to give two years ' time to the appellant to vacate the premises on filing the usual undertaking	 the appellant does not want to contest the proceedings before the Estate officer	 LIC and has undertaken to give vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent on August 1	 1982. Meanwhile	 the appellant shall keep on paying the usual rent. The appellant shall also file an undertaking accompanied by an affidavit to the effect that it shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent on or before August 1	 1982 and shall not induct any tenant on the premises. The undertaking shall be filed within three weeks from today. The subject matter of the appeal is accordingly disposed of finally. N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.

Summary:
The L.I.C. (respondent No. 1) purchased a building at a court auction. The appellant was inducted as a tenant by the prior owner of the premises. The L.l. C. gave notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act directing the appellant to vacate the premises. As the appellant did not vacate the premises the L.I.C. filed a complaint with the Estate Officer	 L.I.C. (respondent No. 2) under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act 1971	 who issued a notice to the appellant under section 4(1) of the Act to show cause why the appellant be not evicted. Before the Estate Officer the appellant raised preliminary objections which related to th equestion of jurisdiction of the Estate Officer to proceed under the Premises Act. The Estate Officer decided the question against him and the High Court confirmed the order. In appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant it was contended: (1) The appellant could not be described as an 'unauthorised occupant ' within the meaning of section 2(2)(g) of the 1971 Act because he had entered into possession of the premises long before they were purchased by the L.I.C.; (2)(i). The Premises Act of 1971 which had been given retrospective effect from the 16th September	 1958 should be construed as a law having been passed in 1958 and so construed the Rent Act (The Delhi Rent Control Act) passed in 1959 over rides the Premises Act; (ii) The Rent Act which is a special law would override the Premises Act and (iii) The intention of the Legislature in passing the Rent Act as seen from section 3(a) was merely to exclude from its operation only premises belonging to the Government and if the intention was to exclude other premises belonging to corporate bodies or Corporations then section 3(a) would have been differently worded. Apart from the Rent Act section	 Section 19 of the which is also a Special Act applying only to such places which are declared to be slums under the Act	 would override the provisions of both the Rent Act and the Premises Act. 499 Dismissing the Appeal: ^ HELD: (1)(a) The appellant was undoubtedly in unauthorised occupation of the premises. [503 D] (b) Section 2(2)(g) does not use the word 'possession ' or the words 'entry into possession ' at any point of time at all. The section merely requires occupation of any public premises. Entry into possession connotes one single terminus	 viz.	 the point of time when a person enters into possession or occupies the property whereas occupation is a continuous process which starts right from the point of time when the person enters into possession or occupies the premises and continues until he leaves the premises. [502 G H] In the instant case the lease was determined by the landlord by a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore	 there can be no doubt that the appellant was in unauthorised occupation of the premises once the lease was determined. [503 Cl Raj Kumar Devendra Singh & Anr. vs State of Punjab and Ors. ; distinguished. 2(i) The Premises Act was passed in 1971 and came into force on 23rd August	 1971 that is long after the Rent Act was passed in 1959. The mere fact that by virtue of a fiction the Premises Act was given retrospective effect from 1958 will not alter the date when the Premises Act was actually passed	 that is August 23	 1971. The Premises Act being subsequent to the Rent Act would naturally prevail over and override the provisions of the Rent Act. [503 G] (ii) The scope and the object of the Premises Act is quite different from that of the Rent Act. The Rent Act is of much wider application	 inasmuch as it applies to all private premises	 which do not fall within the limited exceptions indicated in section 2 of the Premises Act. The object of the Rent Act is to afford special protection to all the tenants or private landlords who are neither a Corporation nor Government or Corporate Bodies. Even under the Rent Act	 a special category has been carved out by section 25B which provides for special procedure for eviction to landlords who require premises for their personal necessity. Section 25B	 therefore	 becomes a special law within the Rent Act. Therefore	 the Premises Act as compared to the Rent Act	 is a Special Act and overrides the provisions of the Rent Act. [505 B C] Sarwan Singh & Anr. vs Kasturi Lal ; & Shri Ram Narain vs The Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd. ; referred to. (iii) once the Premises Act becomes a Special Act dealing with the premises belonging to the Central Government	 Corporations and other statutory bodies	 the Rent Act stands superseded. [505 F] 3. Section 19 of the Slums Act shows that it is in direct conflict with the Premises Act which expressly provides for the forum for evicting persons in unauthorised occupation of premises which fell in section 2 of the Premises Act The Premises Act	 being subsequent to the Slums Act	 as amended in 1964	 and again being a special Act having a very limited sphere	 must necessarily override the Slums Act. [506 D]