Statutory vesting does not permit forcible eviction; tenants remain protected unless dispossessed through due process of law.

The Supreme Court held that statutory vesting of a hotel undertaking in the State did not authorise forcible eviction; possession must be recovered only in accordance with law, not by executive self-help or police force. It further held that deeming provisions under the acquisition statute did not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship, so the occupants continued as tenants and could not be treated as unauthorised occupants for the purpose of Section 6A of the 1976 Act. On that basis, forcible dispossession was unlawful and restoration of possession was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could evict the respondents from the hotel premises by force after acquisition of the undertaking under the Act of 1980. (ii) Whether the respondents' tenancy stood terminated under the Act of 1980 or their occupation could be treated as unauthorised so as to attract Section 6A of the Act of 1976.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could evict the respondents from the hotel premises by force after acquisition of the undertaking under the Act of 1980.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Act of 1980 vested the undertaking in the State Government and empowered it to secure possession, but the power to take steps for securing possession was held not to authorise forcible eviction by police power. The Court applied the settled principle that the State can resume or recover possession only in a manner known to law and not by executive self-help. The contention that the acquisition was for public purpose was rejected, as the object of the statute was held to relate to a commercial hotel venture and not to justify eviction without due process.

Conclusion: The State Government had no lawful authority to remove the respondents by force and the eviction was illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents' tenancy stood terminated under the Act of 1980 or their occupation could be treated as unauthorised so as to attract Section 6A of the Act of 1976.

Analysis: The deeming provisions in Section 4 of the Act of 1980 were held not to extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship merely because the undertaking vested in the State Government. The respondents were found to continue as tenants, with the State stepping into the shoes of the landlord. On that footing, they could not be treated as persons in occupation without tenancy rights for the purpose of Section 6A of the Act of 1976. The Court also declined to accept that the Hotel Authority's acceptance of rent or issue of notices was ineffective against the Government.

Conclusion: The respondents' tenancy continued, and Section 6A of the Act of 1976 was inapplicable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned action of forcible dispossession was not sustainable in law, and the High Court's decision upholding restoration of possession was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory mandate, the State cannot dispossess a tenant by force after statutory vesting of an undertaking, and deeming provisions concerning vesting or termination of contracts do not, by themselves, abolish the landlord-tenant relationship or permit eviction otherwise than in due course of law.

---