Government property and statutory agency: trust's management interest did not amount to ownership, so rent control exclusion applied.

Land placed by Government at the disposal of a trust under a statutory scheme did not transfer ownership where the arrangement preserved Government control, required sanction for alienation, and authorised the trust only to hold and manage the estate on Government's behalf. In that context, "vest" was treated as indicating limited possession or control for a statutory purpose, not full title. Market structures erected by the trust on such land with Government funds were also treated as Government property. On that basis, the premises fell within the Government property exclusion and were outside the rent control statute's operation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the premises, comprising the land and the market structures, belonged to the Government within the meaning of section 3(a) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, so as to exclude the premises from the operation of the Act.

Analysis: The land had admittedly been Government land before it was placed at the disposal of the Trust. The arrangement under section 54A of the United Provinces Town Improvement Act, 1919, and the agreement between Government and the Trust did not transfer title to the Trust. The words placing the property "at the disposal" of the Trust and authorising it to hold and manage the Nazul Estate on behalf of Government were held to create a statutory agency and not a conveyance of ownership. The restrictions on sale, lease, and transfer, together with the requirement of Government sanction, were inconsistent with absolute title in the Trust. The Court also held that the word "vest" in the relevant provisions was of variable import and, in the context of the Improvement Act, denoted possession or control for a limited statutory purpose rather than full ownership. Since the market structures were erected by the Trust on Government land with Government funds advanced for the purpose, the structures too were held to belong to Government.

Conclusion: The market and the land on which it stood were Government property, and section 3(a) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 excluded the premises from the Act's operation. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Government places land at the disposal of a trust under a statutory scheme and the terms preserve Government control and sanction over alienation, the trust acquires only a statutory holding or management interest, not ownership; structures erected on such land with Government funds also remain Government property unless title is expressly transferred.

---