TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 merely provided an additional remedy or whether it impliedly displaced the ordinary civil remedy of eviction; (ii) whether the Act, and in particular the discretionary procedure under section 5, violated Article 14 by creating unreasonable discrimination.
Issue (i): Whether the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 merely provided an additional remedy or whether it impliedly displaced the ordinary civil remedy of eviction.
Analysis: The Act was enacted to provide a speedier machinery for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises and for recovery of rent and damages. Its language did not expressly or by necessary implication take away the Government's ordinary right to sue for eviction. A statute is not lightly read as effecting repeal by implication, and such repeal is inferred only where the later enactment is wholly inconsistent with the earlier law or where coexistence would defeat the object of the later law. The scheme and object of the Act were found compatible with the continued availability of the civil remedy.
Conclusion: The Act did not impliedly repeal the ordinary civil remedy and operated as an additional remedy.
Issue (ii): Whether the Act, and in particular the discretionary procedure under section 5, violated Article 14 by creating unreasonable discrimination.
Analysis: A classification based on public premises was held capable of justification because public property and its prompt recovery bear a special public interest and have a rational relation to the object of speedy eviction. However, section 5 vested an unguided discretion in the Collector to proceed under the special summary procedure against some occupants while leaving others to the ordinary civil process. Where two alternative procedures are available, and one is more drastic and prejudicial than the other, leaving the choice to arbitrary executive will creates discrimination among persons similarly situated. Procedural law is within Article 14, and equal protection is denied when the statute authorises differential treatment without guiding principles.
Conclusion: Section 5 was unconstitutional as it conferred arbitrary and unguided discretion and violated Article 14.
Final Conclusion: The special summary eviction law was upheld in principle as an additional remedy, but the provision conferring uncontrolled choice of the harsher procedure was struck down, leading to success for the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory scheme that offers two alternative remedies, one more drastic than the other, offends Article 14 if it leaves the choice of the harsher procedure to unguided executive discretion among persons similarly situated.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
