Public premises law prevails for nationalised bank properties, treating post-termination occupation as unauthorised and evictable.

Nationalised bank premises are treated as public premises because a corporation established under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government falls within Section 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. A tenant who remains in possession after expiry or termination of the tenancy is in unauthorised occupation under Section 2(g), which expressly covers continued occupation after the authority to occupy has ended. Where premises fall within both the Public Premises Act and the Delhi Rent Control Act, the later special statute prevails for public premises, and the jurisdictional bar in Section 15 excludes reliance on rent-control protection to resist eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether premises belonging to nationalised banks fall within the definition of public premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; (ii) whether a tenant whose tenancy has expired or been terminated and who continues in possession can be treated as a person in unauthorised occupation under the Act; and (iii) whether the Public Premises Act overrides the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in relation to premises covered by both enactments.

Issue (i): whether premises belonging to nationalised banks fall within the definition of public premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

Analysis: The definition of public premises in Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act includes premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of a corporation established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government. Nationalised banks were held to be corporations constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, with the entire capital vested in the Central Government and subject to governmental control. The expression corporation was construed broadly to include public corporations of the new pattern.

Conclusion: Premises belonging to nationalised banks are public premises within Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act.

Issue (ii): whether a tenant whose tenancy has expired or been terminated and who continues in possession can be treated as a person in unauthorised occupation under the Act.

Analysis: Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act defines unauthorised occupation to include continuance in occupation after the authority under which occupation was permitted has expired or been determined for any reason. This statutory definition expressly covers a lessee or tenant who remains in possession after expiry or termination of the tenancy. The earlier view that such possession remained juridical could not prevail against the expanded statutory language.

Conclusion: A tenant continuing in possession after expiry or termination of the tenancy is in unauthorised occupation for the purposes of the Public Premises Act.

Issue (iii): whether the Public Premises Act overrides the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in relation to premises covered by both enactments.

Analysis: Both enactments were treated as special statutes operating in their respective fields, but the Public Premises Act was later in point of time and was enacted to secure speedy eviction from public premises in the public interest. The legislative purpose, the jurisdictional bar in Section 15, and the structure of the Public Premises Act showed a clear intent that it should prevail where public premises are involved, even if the premises also fall within the Rent Control Act. The protection of the Rent Control Act could not be invoked to defeat proceedings under the Public Premises Act.

Conclusion: The Public Premises Act overrides the Delhi Rent Control Act in respect of premises falling within both enactments.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme permits eviction under the Public Premises Act of persons occupying public premises belonging to nationalised banks after expiry or termination of tenancy, and the Rent Control Act does not displace that remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later special statute expressly defines continuing post-termination occupation as unauthorised and bars other courts' jurisdiction, its eviction mechanism prevails over earlier rent-control protection in relation to premises that qualify as public premises.

---