Retrospective use of the Public Premises Act cannot displace an occupant whose possession predates the statute's applicability.

A purely legal objection to the applicability of the Public Premises Act could be entertained despite earlier non-pressing of that point, because res judicata and constructive res judicata did not bar a challenge going to statutory applicability. On retrospectivity, the Act was treated as operating prospectively in this context and could not be used to evict an occupant whose possession and protection predated the Act's applicability. Earlier authorities were distinguished, and the discussion under Article 254(1) did not change that result. The eviction orders were set aside, and the occupant's challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could be permitted to raise the legal plea that the Public Premises Act did not apply to its tenancy notwithstanding an earlier abandonment of that objection. (ii) Whether an occupant in possession prior to the applicability of the Public Premises Act could be evicted under that Act.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant could be permitted to raise the legal plea that the Public Premises Act did not apply to its tenancy notwithstanding an earlier abandonment of that objection.

Analysis: A purely legal plea was permitted to be urged even though it had not been persistently pressed at an earlier stage. The objection based on res judicata and constructive res judicata was not accepted in the circumstances, since the issue went to the legal applicability of the statute.

Conclusion: The legal plea was allowed to be raised and was not rejected on the ground of res judicata or constructive res judicata.

Issue (ii): Whether an occupant in possession prior to the applicability of the Public Premises Act could be evicted under that Act.

Analysis: The reasoning in earlier authorities was distinguished on the ground that they did not decide the effect of retrospectivity on a tenant already protected by a welfare regime before the premises became public premises. The Act was held to operate prospectively in that context, and could not be used to displace possession that had commenced prior to 16 September 1958. The discussion of repugnancy under Article 254(1) did not alter that conclusion.

Conclusion: The Public Premises Act could not be applied to evict the appellant on the facts of this case.

Final Conclusion: The eviction orders were set aside and the appellant's challenge succeeded, with the parties' rental arrangement and future occupation terms recorded separately.

Ratio Decidendi: A statute governing public premises cannot be applied retrospectively to displace an occupant whose possession and protection predate the statute's applicability, and a purely legal objection to such applicability may be entertained despite an earlier lapse in raising it.

---