Chapter XX-C purchase order does not automatically end tenancy or justify eviction without independent legal or contractual basis.

An order under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not by itself terminate a tenant's rights or justify a direction to hand over possession. The governing eviction law depends on the status of the property after vesting: once the property vests in the Union of India, the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 may apply to eviction proceedings. However, statutory purchase proceedings under section 269UD do not automatically displace tenancy, and the effect on possession must be determined by the terms of the agreement to sell. Where the agreement contemplated continued receipt of rent after notice and did not require vacant possession, eviction cannot rest solely on the Chapter XX-C order.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice directing the tenant to hand over possession solely on the basis of an order under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be sustained, and whether the tenant's tenancy stood terminated by reason of the statutory purchase proceedings.

Analysis: The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 defines "Government" as the State Government, so its exemption for Government buildings does not by itself extend to buildings of the Union. But once an order is made under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the property vests in the Union of India, the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 becomes the governing law for eviction in relation to the premises. At the same time, proceedings under section 269UD do not automatically extinguish tenancy rights; whether possession is to be delivered depends on the terms of the agreement to sell. Where the agreement contemplated receipt of rent after notice and did not require vacant possession, the tenancy cannot be treated as by the Chapter XX-C proceedings alone.

Conclusion: The impugned notice, insofar as it required surrender of possession solely because an order had been made under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The tenant was entitled to relief against eviction on the sole basis of the Chapter XX-C order, and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An order under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not by itself terminate tenancy rights or justify delivery of possession unless the agreement to sell or the governing law independently authorises such displacement.

---