1954 (1) TMI 40 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules possession post-tenancy not unauthorized occupation. Respondent to vacate premises voluntarily.

K.K. Verma And Anr. Versus Union of India And Anr.

The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the respondent's possession after tenancy termination did not amount to unauthorized occupation under Section ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950.2. Validity of notice issued under Section 3 of the Act.3. Whether the respondent's possession after tenancy termination constitutes unauthorized occupation.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950:The primary question in this appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950. The Act aims to provide for the eviction of certain persons from Government premises. Section 3 is titled 'Power to evict certain persons from Government premises' and outlines the conditions under which the competent authority can evict individuals. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 grants the competent authority the power to evict and take possession of the premises using necessary force. Section 4 allows the authority to recover damages, Section 5 provides for an appeal to the Central Government, Section 6 ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts, and Section 9 imposes penalties for obstructing lawful exercises under the Act. The statute is penal in nature and must be strictly construed in favor of the subject.2. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 3 of the Act:The Union of India issued a notice under Section 3 of the Act, requiring the respondent to vacate the premises within fifteen days. The validity of this notice hinges on whether the respondent falls within the ambit of Section 3. The scheme of Section 3 differentiates between persons authorized to occupy Government premises (Sub-clause (a)) and those in unauthorized occupation (Sub-clause (b)). The respondent's case does not fall under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) because the obligation to hand over possession under Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act arises after tenancy termination, not during its subsistence. Therefore, the respondent did not contravene any terms of the tenancy while it was subsisting.3. Whether the Respondent's Possession After Tenancy Termination Constitutes Unauthorized Occupation:The core issue is whether a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated and who continues in possession can be considered in unauthorized occupation. Under English law, a tenant becomes a trespasser if the landlord expresses a clear intention to take possession after tenancy termination. However, Indian law distinguishes between a trespasser and an erstwhile tenant. The possession of an erstwhile tenant is juridical and protected by law, unlike a trespasser whose possession is never juridical. Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act allows an erstwhile tenant to sue for possession if deprived otherwise than in due course of law, underscoring the protection of such possession.The court concluded that the expression 'unauthorized occupation' in Section 3(1)(b) does not extend to erstwhile tenants whose possession is juridical and protected by law. The Legislature did not intend to penalize tenants continuing in possession after tenancy termination, as their possession is lawful and protected. Consequently, the respondent's possession was not unauthorized, and the notice issued by the Union of India was invalid.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the respondent's possession after tenancy termination did not constitute unauthorized occupation under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. The respondent agreed to vacate the premises by December 31 to avoid unnecessary litigation. The appellants' attorneys were granted liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs. 500 deposited in court.