TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1954 (1) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 15-4-1953, prior to the notice, apprehending that the appellant who is the Sub-Area Commander would take action against him, the Union gave a further notice on 3-8-1953, under Section 3 of Act 27 of 1950, calling upon the respondent to hand over 'possession within fifteen days' from the date of the service of the notice, and the only question that arises in this appeal is whether this notice is a valid notice, and it will only be a valid notice provided the respondent comes within the ambit of Section 3 of Act 27 of 1950. That Act was put on the statute book, as the preamble shows, for the purpose of providing for the eviction of certain persons from Government premises and for certain matters connected therewith. The expression "certain persons" does not throw much light on the intention of the Legislature because it is clear that the persons contemplated are persons who would satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 3, and, therefore, in order to determine whether a person is the certain person to whom the Act applies, what we have to do is to construe Section 3 and in construction of Section 3 the preamble is not of any assistance. Section 3 is entitled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder an obligation under Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act to hand over possession of the demised premises & inasmuch as he failed to do so, he acted in contravention of an implied term of the tenancy. Mr. Desai says that Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act is a term implied in every tenancy unless there is a contract to the contrary and, therefore, this particular clause must be looked upon as an implied term of the contractual tenancy between the Union of India, the landlord, and the respondent. In our opinion, it is clear that Sub-clause (a) deals with the acts of a person which he commits while being in possession of the Government premises which he is authorised to possess. The obligation of the tenant to hand over possession under Section 108(q) only arises after the tenancy has been terminated and to the extent that Sub-clause (a) deals with tenants, it deals with the acts of the tenants while the tenancy is subsisting. Sub-clause (a) (i) deals with the case of a sub-letting which the tenant does while he is a tenant and Sub-clause (a) (ii) deals with contravention of express or implied terms of the tenancy, again while the tenancy is subsisting. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The well-known authority on Landlord and Tenant, by Hill and Redman, 11th Edn. at p. 498, states: "After the determination of the tenancy any act of the landlord showing an intention to take possession is sufficient to revest the possession in him so that the tenant becomes a trespasser." It seems to us that the author has advisedly emphasized the fact that the act of the landlord showing his intention should be after the determination of the tenancy. But Mr. Desai says that this only applies to cases where a tenancy runs out by efflux of time, but this would not apply to a case where a landlord gives a notice to quit and in the notice itself he makes it clear that he wants possession of the premises. Mr. Desai says that if the landlord has expressed that intention in the notice, then on the termination of the tenancy by reason of the notice the possession of the tenant becomes wrongful and he becomes trespasser. In this particular case Mr. Desai says that the notice to quit makes it clear that the landlord wanted possession on the termination of the tenancy and, therefore, according to Mr. Desai, the respondent became a trespasser on 1st August, the tenancy having ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....while tenant can never become a trespasser. It may or may not be that in English law in certain circumstances he can become a trespasser and it does seem that the landlord can enter the premises and deprive the erstwhile tenant of his possession, but In India a landlord can only eject his erstwhile tenant by recourse to law and by obtaining a decree for ejectment. Therefore, when we are construing the expression "unauthorised person", we must assume that the Legislature knew the distinction that was drawn in law between a trespasser and an erstwhile tenant, and, therefore, what we have to decide is whether in using the expression "unauthorised person" the Legislature was only contemplating 'trespassers' in the sense in which that word is understood in Indian law or was also contemplating an erstwhile tenant who ceased to be a tenant by reason of the termination of his tenancy. 5. Now, there is no doubt that the respondent entered into these premises under a proper title, that his occupation was authorised and that his possession after the termination of the tenancy, as already pointed out, was a juridical possession. On the other hand, in the case of a....