NARESH KUMAR Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts relating to Civil are as under : The 5th respondent, Union of India (Eastern Railway) owns a cinema building forming part of the Civil which is situated in Mughal Sarai. It has an auditorium and other equipments used for films for the entertainment of railway officers and employees. The management of the club building including auditorium, machinery etc. had been entrusted by the 5th respondent (Eastern Railway Administration) to the 3rd respondent (the Railway Cinema Club) in the year 1982. The auditorium of railway cinema was hired to in favour of the appellant for a period of 5 years for screening feature films. On expiry of this period the 2nd respondent, the estate officer. Eastern Railway, Mughal Sarai initiated proceedings for the eviction of the appellant that on expiry of the contract period he had become an unauthorised occupant. The proceedings were takenunder the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act of 1971, hereinafter referred to as the 'act'. The estate officer directed eviction after observing due procedure under Section 5 of the Act. Aggrieved by that order of eviction an appeal was preferred to the first respondent (6th Additional District Judge, Varanasi). That appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant challenged the same in Civil Misc. WP No. 15313 of 1988 before the High court of Allahabad. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and upheld the order of eviction. Questioning the correctness of the said judgment the present Civil has been preferred. The learned counsel for the appellant raises the following points for our consideration:

(2.) In All India Rly. Institute Employees' Assn. v. Union of India, this court held the employees of such cinema houses are not employees of the Railway. It should follow that the central government will have nothing to do with the licence in favour of the appellant.

(3.) In Ashoka Mktg. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, (On in upholding the validity of these Acts this court took the view that the central government will not behave as a private landlord. This is one of the grounds on which the validity was upheld.