2015 (8) TMI 1220 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Public Premises Act not retroactive to State Rent Control Acts. Eviction under Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

Suhas H. Pophale Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and its Estate Officer

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and eviction order. It held that the Public Premises Act could not ... Whether the rights of an occupant/licensee/ tenant protected under a State Rent Control Act (Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and its successor the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, in the instant case), could be adversely affected by application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Held that:- In the case of a company under the Companies Act, 1956 as in the present case, it is necessary that the premises must belong to or must be taken on lease by a company which has not less than 51 per cent paid up share capital held by the Central Government. - if there are rights created in favour of any person, whether they are property rights or rights arising from a transaction in the nature of a contract, and particularly if they are protected under a statute, and if they are to be taken away by any legislation, that legislation will have to say so specifically by giving it a retrospective effect. This is because prima facie every legislation is prospective Appellant was undoubtedly protected as a ‘deemed tenant’ under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, prior to the merger of the erstwhile insurance company with a Government Company, and he could be removed only by following the procedure available under the Bombay Rent Act. A ‘deemed tenant’ under the Bombay Rent Act, continued to be protected under the succeeding Act, in view of the definition of a ‘tenant’ under Section 7(15)(a)(ii) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Thus, as far as the tenants of the premises which are not covered under the Public Premises Act are concerned, those tenants who were deemed tenants under the Bombay Rent Act continued to have their protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It is very clear that in the facts of the present case, the appellant’s status as a deemed tenant was accepted under the state enactment, and therefore he could not be said to be in “unauthorised occupation”. His right granted by the state enactment cannot be destroyed by giving any retrospective application to the provisions of Public Premises Act, since there is no such express provision in the statute, nor is it warranted by any implication. In fact his premises would not come within the ambit of the Public Premises Act, until they belonged to the respondent No. 1, i.e until 1.1.1974. The corollary is that if the respondent No. 1 wanted to evict the appellant, the remedy was to resort to the procedure available under the Bombay Rent Act or its successor Maharashtra Rent Control Act, by approaching the forum thereunder, and not by resorting to the provisions of the Public Premises Act. Application of the Public Premises Act will be only from 16.9.1958, or from such later date when concerned premises become Public Premises on the concerned landlord becoming a Government Company or Public Corporation. When the law laid down by the different Benches of this Court including by the Constitution Benches on retrospectivity is so clear, and so are the provisions of the Public Premises Act, there is no occasion for this Court to take any other view. - since the issue of retrospective application of the Public Premises Act, to tenancies entered into before 16.9.1958, or before the property in question becoming a public premises, was neither canvassed nor considered by the bench in Ashoka Marketing (1990 (8) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT), the decision does not, in any way, prevent this Bench from clarifying the law regarding the same. This follows from the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Ranbir @ Rana reported in [2006 (4) TMI 496 - supreme court] wherein it was held that a decision, it is well-settled, is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. - Decided in favour of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 to premises protected under State Rent Control Acts.2. Retrospective application of the Public Premises Act.3. Interpretation of 'unauthorised occupation' under the Public Premises Act.4. Validity of eviction proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act against protected tenants.5. Harmonious interpretation of the Public Premises Act and State Rent Control Acts.6. Guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of the Public Premises Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Public Premises Act to Premises Protected under State Rent Control Acts:The central issue was whether the Public Premises Act could override protections granted under the Bombay Rent Act and its successor, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The appellant argued that his occupation was protected under Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act, which deemed licensees in occupation on February 1, 1973, as tenants. The High Court had ruled that the Public Premises Act applied, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank, which held that the Public Premises Act overrides the Rent Control Act for premises falling under both enactments.2. Retrospective Application of the Public Premises Act:The appellant contended that the Public Premises Act could not retrospectively apply to premises protected under the Bombay Rent Act before the premises became public premises. The Court held that rights created under the State Rent Control Act could not be extinguished retrospectively by the Public Premises Act unless explicitly stated. The Court emphasized that legislation is presumed to be prospective unless expressly stated otherwise.3. Interpretation of 'Unauthorised Occupation':The term 'unauthorised occupation' under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act includes occupation without authority and continued occupation after the expiry or determination of authority. The Court noted that the appellant's status as a 'deemed tenant' under the Bombay Rent Act meant he was not in unauthorised occupation. The Court distinguished between contractual and statutory tenancies, emphasizing that statutory tenants protected by law cannot be deemed unauthorised occupants.4. Validity of Eviction Proceedings Initiated under the Public Premises Act:The Court held that the eviction proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act against the appellant were invalid. The appellant's tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act could not be overridden by the Public Premises Act retrospectively. The Court set aside the eviction order and the subsequent judgments upholding it, stating that the only remedy for eviction was under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.5. Harmonious Interpretation of the Public Premises Act and State Rent Control Acts:The Court emphasized a harmonious interpretation of the two statutes, allowing for the coexistence of both. The Public Premises Act would apply only from the date the premises became public premises, and not retrospectively. The Court clarified that the Public Premises Act could not nullify protections granted under the State Rent Control Act before the premises became public premises.6. Guidelines to Prevent Arbitrary Use of the Public Premises Act:The Court referred to guidelines issued by the Central Government to prevent arbitrary use of the Public Premises Act. These guidelines emphasized that the Act should primarily be used to evict totally unauthorized occupants or employees who had ceased to be in service, and not to evict genuine tenants for commercial motives. The Court highlighted that these guidelines, while advisory, reflect the intention behind the statute and should guide public undertakings in their application of the Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and the eviction order. It held that the Public Premises Act could not retrospectively apply to premises protected under the Bombay Rent Act before they became public premises. The Court emphasized that eviction proceedings should be initiated under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, respecting the protections granted to tenants under the State Rent Control Acts.