Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The petitioner is a perpetual lessee of premises bearing Office No. 2, First Floor and Servant Quarter 113 and 115, Atma Ram Mansion (Scindia House), Connaught Circus, Janpath, New Delhi which was given on lease to respondent No.1, a nationalised bank. The petitioner terminated the lease vide a legal notice dated 17.8.1991 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was replied to by respondent No.1, the bank on 8.9.1991 alleging that the premises in question are covered by the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PP Act') and claiming that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') are not applicable. Respondent No.1 thus refused to vacate the premises.
2. The petitioner thereafter issued a notice dated 13.9.1991 to respondent No.2, Secretary, Ministry of Finance asking for the appointment of an Estate Officer under Section 3 of the PP Act in view of the fact that respondent No.1 was an unauthorized occupant of the public premises so that the petitioner could seek eviction from the premises. It was stated that the Rent Controller would have no jurisdiction and in view of the bar contained under Section 15 of the PP Act, the civil court would also not entertain a suit or proceedings for eviction. There is no reply to the said notice and the petitioner has thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking appointment of such an Estate Officer.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of Section 2(e) of the PP Act which defines a public premises. The said provision is as under:
'2. Definitions.-- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, --
(e) 'public premises' means--
(1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes any such premises which have been placed by that government, whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980, under the control of the Secretariat of either House of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that Secretariat;
(2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of,--
(i) any company as defined in section 3 of the companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one per cent, of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government or any company which is a subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act) of the first-mentioned company.
(ii) any corporation (not being a company as company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local authority) established by or under a Central act and owned or controlled by the Central Government.
(iii) any University established or incorporated by any Central Act.
(iv) any Institute incorporated by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961.
(v) any Board of Trustees constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.
(vi) the Bhakra management Board constituted under section 79 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and that Board as and when re-named as the Bhakra-Beas Management Board under sub-section (6) of section 80 of that Act;
(vii) any State Government or the Government of any Union Territory situated in the National Capital Territory of Delhi or in any other Union Territory.
(viii) any Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924; (2 of 1924); and
(3) in relation to the National Capital Territory of Delhi,--
(i) any premises belonging to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any municipal committee or notified area committee,
(ii) any premises belonging to the Delhi Development Authority, whether such premises are in the possession of, or leased out by, the said Authority; and
(iii) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of any State Government or the Government of any Union Territory.'
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd & Anr. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., : [1990]3SCR649 where it was held that a nationalised bank is a Corporation and premises belonging to a nationalised bank are public premises within the meaning of Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the PP Act. Learned counsel further relied upon the same judgment for the proposition that the provisions of the PP Act over-ride the provisions of the Rent Act.
5. The Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of the Rent Act and the PP Act observed as under:
'64. It would thus appear that, while the Rent Control Act is intended to deal with the general relationship of landlords and tenants in respect of premises other than government premises, the Public Premises Act is intended to deal with speedy recovery of possession of premises of public nature, i.e. property belonging to the Central Government, or Companies in which the Central Government has substantial interest or Corporations owned or controlled by the Central Government and certain corporations, institutions, autonomous bodies and local authorities. The effect of giving overriding effect to the provisions of the Public Premises Act over the Rent Control Act, would be that buildings belonging to Companies, Corporations and autonomous bodies referred to in Section 2(e) of the Public premises Act would be excluded from the ambit of the Rent Control Act in the same manner as properties belonging to the Central Government. The reason underlying the exclusion of property belonging to the Government from the ambit of the Rent Control Act, is that the Government while dealing with the citizens in respect of property belonging to it would not act for its own purpose as a private landlord but would at in public interest. What can be said with regard to the Government in relation to property belonging to it can also be said with regard to companies, corporations and other statutory bodies mentioned in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act. In our opinion, thereforee, keeping in view of the object and purpose underlying both the enactments viz., the Rent Control Act and the Public Premises Act, the provisions of the Public Premises Act have to be construed as overriding the provisions contained in the Rent Control Act.'
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the premises are covered by the PP Act, it is immaterial whether the bank is the landlord or the tenant since the reference is to the premises. The petitioner thus seeks to recover possession of the premises under the summary proceedings of the PP Act.
7. The aforesaid plea, in my considered view, cannot be accepted as is apparent from the observations of the Supreme Court quoted in para 64 above. The object of the enactment of the PP Act in giving it over-riding effect is that the Government (bank in the present case) would not act for its own purpose as a private landlord but would act in public interest requiring speedy recovery of the premises and its occupation. The object is to facilitate the said institution in recovering possession and not being dispossessed from the premises. This is also apparent from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendment Act, 1980 which provides that the PP Act was enacted to provide for speedy and summary eviction of unauthorised occupants from the premises of the Central Government, companies in which not less than fifty-one per cent paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, and Corporations (other than local authorities) established by or under Central Acts and owned or controlled by the Central Government.
8. It is apparent from the reading of the aforesaid that the object is to evict the unauthorized occupants without recourse to civil suits for recovery of possession. An unauthorized occupant is defined in Section 2(g) of the PP Act which is as under:
(g) '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.'
9. A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that the unauthorized occupation is an occupation by any person of the public premises. This is not a reference to either the Central Government or the Corporation as referred to in the definition of 'public premises'. It is thus apparent that Section 2(g) does not include the Government or the Corporation as the occupation of the building which could be evicted by a private party through the process of the provisions of the PP Act.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in P.S. Jain Company Ltd. v. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors., : 65(1997)DLT308 where the provisions of Section 3(c) of the Rent Act came to be interpreted and it was held that where a sub-tenant is paying rent in excess of Rs.3,500/-, even if the tenant is paying to the landlord a rent of less than that, the premises would be outside the protection of the Rent Act. I fail to see how this would be of any assistance to learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the interpretation of the provisions of the PP Act.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.C. Bhatia & Ors. Union of India & Anr., : (1995)1SCC104 where the provisions of Section 3(c) of the Rent Act excluding premises of monthly rental of more than Rs.3,500/- from the provisions of the Rent Act were upheld. It may be noticed that the Indian Banks Association had in fact filed a petition SLP (C) 13938/1991 seeking exclusion of the application of the said provision to banks but this plea was rejected by the Supreme Court on account of the fact that no exception had been carved out in respect of the banks.
12. The aforesaid provisions clearly show that where the rent is more than Rs.3500/-, a landlord has to take recourse to the provisions of the civil court to seek eviction of the tenant including a bank. Similarly, if there is a breach by the bank/ tenant, which would entitle a landlord to seek eviction under the Rent Act, the same is permissible to a landlord.
13. In my considered view, the petitioner can seek eviction only through the provisions of the Rent Act if one of the conditions specified therein for eviction are satisfied since admittedly the rent in the present case is less than Rs.3500/-. The reply sent by the bank to the petitioner cannot form the basis of the claim of the petitioner since the provisions of the Public Act can only be resorted to, to evict a private occupant from the premises in question and not to evict the Government or the bank by a private landlord. The premises would not have the character of a public premises for any proceedings by the private landlord against the Government or Corporation or the bank.
14. I find no merit in the writ petition.
15. Dismissed.