Public premises eviction after lease termination: unauthorised occupation and leasehold buildings were held within the Act's reach.

Occupation that was lawful at inception but became unlawful after expiry or determination of a public lease falls within "unauthorised occupation" under the Public Premises Act, so eviction proceedings before the Estate Officer were maintainable and civil proceedings were not required. A building raised on the leased land was also treated as part of the public premises where the perpetual lease deed required the lessee, on determination of the lease, to yield up both the land and the structures on it. The appeal failed on both issues, and the challenged order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings for eviction before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were maintainable after determination of the lease. (ii) Whether the building constructed on the leased land could be treated as public premises within the meaning of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings for eviction before the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 were maintainable after determination of the lease.

Analysis: The expression "unauthorised occupation" in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act includes occupation that was lawful at inception but later ceased to be lawful after expiry or determination of the grant or lease. The earlier decision in Express Newspapers was distinguished on its facts, and the later decision in Ashoka Marketing was followed as binding precedent. On that basis, recourse to civil proceedings was not necessary.

Conclusion: The eviction proceedings before the Estate Officer were maintainable, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the building constructed on the leased land could be treated as public premises within the meaning of the Act.

Analysis: Clause 15 of the perpetual lease deed required the lessee, on determination of the lease, to yield up the land and the buildings thereon to the lessor. In that setting, the building constructed on the land could not be excluded from the ambit of public premises merely because it had been raised by the lessee.

Conclusion: The building formed part of the public premises, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both questions decided, and the order under challenge was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: After determination of a lease of public premises, occupation falls within unauthorised occupation under the Public Premises Act, and the Estate Officer may proceed under the statute; buildings required to be yielded up under the lease deed may also fall within public premises.

---