TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 1413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts. 3. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 13.07.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 250/2012, whereby the Division Bench confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the District Judge and the Estate Officer. The Appellant has been directed to be evicted under these orders from the concerned premises situated at 18/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001. 4. The case of the Appellant is that the Appellant has been occupying these premises right from 26th March, 1952 and the Respondent-Bank became owner of this property only on 31.12.1978. There were some initial notices issued to the Appellant to vacate the premises, but ultimately it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich one of us (H.L. Gokhale, J.) was a party, this Court has held that the Public Premises Act cannot be applied to the premises where the occupants have come in possession thereof, prior to the application of the Act, i.e., prior to 16th September, 1958. In the circumstances, Mr. Raval submits that all these orders should be set aside, the appeal should be allowed and the eviction proceedings should be dismissed. 7. On the other hand, it was submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Bank that the Appellant had raised at an intermediate stage the plea of not being covered under the Public Premises Act, and had subsequently dropped that plea. They had then relied upon guidelines and, therefore, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spectivity, was not under consideration before the Court in M/s. Jain Ink Manufacturing Company (supra). The same holds good for the judgment rendered in Ashoka Marketing Limited (supra), and that being so, since those aspects were not gone into in the judgment of Ashoka Marketing Limited (supra), this Court has examined them in the case of Dr. Suhas H. Pophale (supra). This Court has specifically observed in paragraph 50 thereof that for a moment this Court was not taking any different position from the propositions in Ashoka Marketing Limited (supra). In fact, what was done was to clarify that the Public Premises Act will apply only in certain circumstances. That being so, this submission of Mr. Vikas Singh cannot be accepted. 9. He th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iction Act. That aspect has not been contradicted in Dr. Suhas H. Pophale's case (supra). It also relies upon the judgment in Ashoka Marketing Limited (supra) which says that the Public Premises Act as well as the State Rent Control Laws are both referable to entries in concurrent list and they operate in their own field. It is only in the area of its own that the State Rent Control Act applies and in its own time frame. The judgment in Dr. Suhas Pophale's case accepts that the Public Premises Act will prevail over the Bombay Rent Act to the extent of repugnancy i.e. for eviction of unauthorised tenants and for collection of arrear of rent, but, not prior to 16.9.1958 when the Public Premises Act became applicable. Paragraphs 42 and....