https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273579 Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950 did not cover a tenant's continued possession after termination, because that provision applies to conduct while the occupier remains lawfully authorised and a post-termination failure to vacate is not a breach of a subsisting tenancy term. Section 3(1)(b) was also construed narrowly: in a penal eviction statute, "unauthorised occupation" means occupation unlawful from the outset and does not include an erstwhile tenant who entered lawfully and remains in juridical possession after tenancy ends. The notice to vacate was therefore invalid. en-us Tue, 19 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Jul 2018 15:56:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273579 Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950 did not cover a tenant's continued possession after termination, because that provision applies to conduct while the occupier remains lawfully authorised and a post-termination failure to vacate is not a breach of a subsisting tenancy term. Section 3(1)(b) was also construed narrowly: in a penal eviction statute, "unauthorised occupation" means occupation unlawful from the outset and does not include an erstwhile tenant who entered lawfully and remains in juridical possession after tenancy ends. The notice to vacate was therefore invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273579