Statutory vesting and unauthorised occupation: an unregistered sale agreement did not bar Public Premises proceedings.

Property connected with a textile undertaking was held to vest with the Central Government, and then with the appellant, because the statutory expression covering the owner's right, title and interest was construed broadly. An unregistered agreement to sell and reliance on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act did not establish ownership or authorised occupation against that statutory vesting. The existence of a title dispute did not displace the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act in these facts, and the High Court erred in treating the respondent as outside the definition of unauthorised occupant. Proceedings under the Public Premises Act were therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 could continue against the respondent or whether the appellant was required to file a civil suit because of the alleged title dispute and the claim of authorised occupation based on an unregistered agreement to sell.

Analysis: The subject premises were held to have vested in the Central Government and thereafter in the appellant under the textile undertakings legislation, because the expression "the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to every textile undertaking" was construed broadly and included property connected with the undertaking. The Court found that the respondent's reliance on an unregistered agreement to sell and on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 did not establish ownership or authorised occupation against the statutory vesting. It further held that the High Court had erred in presuming that the property had been sold out of the textile undertaking and in treating the respondent as outside the definition of unauthorised occupant. The existence of a title dispute did not oust the statutory remedy under the Public Premises Act in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were maintainable and could continue, and the respondent was not entitled to insist that the appellant be relegated to a civil suit.

Ratio Decidendi: Property and rights that are part of or sufficiently connected with a textile undertaking vest under the nationalisation statute, and an unregistered agreement to sell does not by itself confer authorised occupation so as to bar proceedings under the Public Premises Act.

---