Public premises eviction law prevails over tenancy notice rules when Union property is managed by a Cantonment Board.

Premises belonging to the Union of India and managed by a Cantonment Board fall within the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and the Estate Officer can proceed under that Act. The later express inclusion of Cantonment Boards did not exclude such Union property from the Act before amendment. After expiry of the lease term, continued occupation becomes unauthorised under the Act, so eviction may be based on notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act. Separate notice under Sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not required where the special statute applies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to proceed against the occupant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in respect of premises belonging to the Union of India but managed by a Cantonment Board; (ii) Whether the respondent's occupation, after expiry of the lease period, could be terminated only by a notice under Sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or whether notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was sufficient.

Issue (i): Whether the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to proceed against the occupant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in respect of premises belonging to the Union of India but managed by a Cantonment Board.

Analysis: The premises were found to belong to the Union of India and to be under the management of the Cantonment Board under Section 116A of the Cantonment Act, 1924. Premises belonging to the Central Government were already covered by Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act, and the later amendment specifically including Cantonment Boards did not mean that Union property managed by a Cantonment Board was outside the Act before that amendment. The objection that the Estate Officer lacked subject-matter jurisdiction was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The Estate Officer had jurisdiction, and the eviction proceedings were valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent's occupation, after expiry of the lease period, could be terminated only by a notice under Sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or whether notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was sufficient.

Analysis: Once the lease period expired, the respondent remained in unauthorised occupation within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act. The special statute governing eviction from public premises prevailed over the general law of leases under the Transfer of Property Act. Since notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act had been served, a further notice under Sections 106 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act was not required.

Conclusion: Notice under the Public Premises Act was sufficient, and the view that a 15 days' notice under the Transfer of Property Act was necessary was incorrect.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order was upheld and the challenge to the High Court decisions succeeded because the premises fell within the Public Premises Act and the occupant had no lawful authority to remain after expiry of the lease.

Ratio Decidendi: Where premises belonging to the Central Government are managed by a Cantonment Board, the Public Premises Act applies and overrides the general requirements of the Transfer of Property Act for termination of tenancy after expiry of the lease term.

---