Summary rent recovery remedies may reach pre-commencement occupation, but only if the premises are proved Government premises.

A rent recovery and eviction statute creating a summary remedy may operate even where occupation, letting, or requisition began before the Act commenced, because no vested right exists in a particular procedural remedy and liability depends on the statutory conditions being met when recovery is sought. However, the machinery cannot be used unless the premises are first established as Government premises or requisitioned property within the Act. On the facts described, no valid requisition notification or delegation was shown, so the premises were not proved to fall within the statutory definition and recovery as arrears of land revenue failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952 could be applied to recover arrears of rent or damages where the occupation, letting, or requisition of the premises had commenced before the Act came into force; (ii) Whether the premises in question were shown to be requisitioned property and therefore Government premises within the meaning of the Act, so as to justify recovery as arrears of land revenue.

Issue (i): Whether the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952 could be applied to recover arrears of rent or damages where the occupation, letting, or requisition of the premises had commenced before the Act came into force.

Analysis: The Act was intended to provide a summary procedure for recovery of rent and damages from persons occupying Government premises and for eviction of unauthorized occupants. The definitions and charging provisions showed that liability to pay rent or damages depended on the existence of occupation of Government premises and on the amount being payable when the demand was made. The Court held that there was no vested right in any particular procedural remedy, and that the Act could be used even where the letting or occupation had begun before its commencement, provided the statutory conditions for recovery were otherwise satisfied. The contrary view would defeat the object of the legislation and improperly restrict the remedies created by Sections 4, 6 and 12.

Conclusion: The Act is not excluded merely because the letting, requisition, or occupation commenced before the Act; if the premises are Government premises and the amount is otherwise recoverable, the statutory remedy may be invoked.

Issue (ii): Whether the premises in question were shown to be requisitioned property and therefore Government premises within the meaning of the Act, so as to justify recovery as arrears of land revenue.

Analysis: The Court found that no valid notification or order of requisition under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939 had been produced. The purported requisition under Rule 81(2)(bb) was not valid, and there was no established delegation of the Government's requisitioning power to the District Magistrate under Section 2(5) of the Defence of India Act, 1939. On the materials on record, it could not be said that the premises were requisitioned property or Government premises within Section 2(c) of the Act. Without that foundational fact, the machinery under the Act could not be used.

Conclusion: The premises were not proved to be Government premises, and the amount could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory recovery mechanism could not be invoked on the facts, even though the Act was held capable in principle of operating upon pre-commencement occupation where the premises are Government premises.

Ratio Decidendi: A rent recovery and eviction statute creating a summary remedy may apply to pre-commencement occupation or liability if the statutory conditions are satisfied, but the remedy cannot be invoked unless the premises are first established to be Government premises within the meaning of the Act.

---