Retrospective public premises law cannot extinguish vested rent control tenancy rights once accrued.

A deemed tenant protected under State rent control law could not be treated as an unauthorised occupant under the Public Premises Act before the premises actually became public premises. The Court held that the tenant's statutory status remained governed by the State regime until the premises fell within the Act's definition, so eviction on the footing of unauthorised occupation was unavailable. It also held that the Public Premises Act could not be read retrospectively to destroy vested tenancy protections already accrued under the State law. The statutes had to be harmoniously construed, with the later Act operating only from the date the premises became public premises.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether occupants protected as deemed tenants under the State rent control law could be proceeded against as unauthorised occupants under the Public Premises Act before the premises became public premises; (ii) whether the Public Premises Act could be applied retrospectively so as to extinguish vested tenant protections already accrued under the State rent control law.

Issue (i): Whether occupants protected as deemed tenants under the State rent control law could be proceeded against as unauthorised occupants under the Public Premises Act before the premises became public premises.

Analysis: The protection conferred by the State rent control law created a substantive status in favour of the occupant. The premises could attract the Public Premises Act only when they actually fell within the statutory definition of public premises, namely when they belonged to the Government company concerned. Until that point, the relationship remained governed by the State rent control regime. A tenant or deemed tenant in occupation before the premises acquired that character could not be treated as being in unauthorised occupation merely because management of the erstwhile insurer had earlier been taken over.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be treated as an unauthorised occupant for the relevant period, and the Public Premises Act was not available to evict him on that footing.

Issue (ii): Whether the Public Premises Act could be applied retrospectively so as to extinguish vested tenant protections already accrued under the State rent control law.

Analysis: Substantive rights are ordinarily prospective in operation unless the legislature expressly or by necessary implication provides otherwise. The occupant's deemed tenancy had accrued before the premises became public premises, and there was no indication that the Public Premises Act was intended to operate retrospectively to destroy that accrued protection. The later enactment therefore could not be construed to nullify vested rights under the State statute. The two statutes were required to be read harmoniously, with the Public Premises Act operating only from the date the premises actually became public premises.

Conclusion: The Public Premises Act could not retrospectively defeat the appellant's vested protection under the State rent control law.

Final Conclusion: The eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act were unsustainable, and the proper remedy, if any, lay under the applicable State rent control law.

Ratio Decidendi: The Public Premises Act applies only from the date premises actually become public premises, and it cannot be given retrospective effect to extinguish vested tenancy protections already created under a State rent control statute.

---