Legislative competence upheld for public premises eviction law; Parliament could validly provide speedy removal of unauthorised occupants.

The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was upheld as within Parliament's legislative competence. Applying pith and substance, the Court held that the Act's dominant purpose is to provide a speedy procedure for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises, with ancillary provisions on notice, inquiry, appeal, recovery of arrears, damages, and exclusion of civil court jurisdiction. On that basis, it was supportable under Entry 32 of List I as relating to Union property and the revenue from it. The Court further held that Parliament could also legislate in relation to Government companies and their premises under the Union legislative field, including the residuary power, and the constitutional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament, either because the subject matter fell within the State List or because the Act, in so far as it applied to Union property and premises of Government companies, was constitutionally invalid.

Analysis: The Act was examined on the basis of its pith and substance. Its dominant purpose was held to be the provision of a speedy procedure for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises, with ancillary provisions concerning notice, inquiry, appeal, recovery of arrears, damages, and exclusion of civil court jurisdiction. The earlier Constitution Bench decision was treated as having characterised the subject matter in this way, even though legislative competence had not been fully debated there. On that basis, the Court held that the legislation was supportable under Entry 32 of List I as relating to Union property and the revenue therefrom. The Court further held that, even apart from that entry, Parliament could legislate with respect to Government companies and their premises under the Union legislative field, including the residuary power, and no viable State legislation displaced the Central enactment.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act on the ground of lack of legislative competence was rejected, and the Act was held to be within Parliament's powers.

---