Unauthorised occupation of public premises continues after authority ends, and the special public premises law prevails over rent control statutes.

Continued occupation after authority to occupy public premises has expired or been terminated constitutes unauthorised occupation under the Public Premises Act, even if the tenant originally entered lawfully. The Act is not limited to initial entry; it also covers continued possession without authority after the premises become public premises and after tenancy termination by notice. The Delhi Rent Control Act and the Slum Areas Act do not bar proceedings under the Public Premises Act, because the later special statute governing public premises prevails over overlapping earlier rent-control or slum legislation. The jurisdiction under the Public Premises Act was therefore upheld and the preliminary objections failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a tenant who entered into possession before the premises became public premises could still be treated as in unauthorised occupation under the Public Premises Act after the landlord's authority was determined. (ii) Whether the Delhi Rent Control Act or the Slum Areas Act overrides the Public Premises Act and bars proceedings under it.

Issue (i): Whether a tenant who entered into possession before the premises became public premises could still be treated as in unauthorised occupation under the Public Premises Act after the landlord's authority was determined.

Analysis: The definition of unauthorised occupation in the Public Premises Act is not confined to the initial entry into possession. It extends to continued occupation of public premises without authority and also covers continuance after the authority under which occupation was permitted has expired or been determined. Since the appellant remained in occupation after the premises became public premises and after termination of the tenancy by notice, the occupation fell within the statutory definition.

Conclusion: The appellant was rightly held to be in unauthorised occupation under the Public Premises Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the Delhi Rent Control Act or the Slum Areas Act overrides the Public Premises Act and bars proceedings under it.

Analysis: The Public Premises Act was later in point of enactment and was framed for a limited class of public premises, with a special summary mechanism for eviction of unauthorised occupants. Its scope and object were held distinct from the broader protection afforded by the Delhi Rent Control Act. The same reasoning applied to the Slum Areas Act. On principles governing conflicting special enactments and non-obstante clauses, the later and special statute governing public premises prevails.

Conclusion: Neither the Delhi Rent Control Act nor the Slum Areas Act barred action under the Public Premises Act.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objections failed, the jurisdiction under the Public Premises Act was upheld, and the appeal did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Continued occupation after the expiry or termination of the authority to occupy public premises constitutes unauthorised occupation, and a later special statute governing a limited class of public premises prevails over earlier general or overlapping rent-control and slum legislation.

---