NARESH KUMAR Vs. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a Railway Cinema Club at Mughalsarai. It has an auditorium fitted with a projector and other equipment used for the exhibition of films for the entertainment of the Railway Officers and employees. This cinema building is owned by the Central Government under the Ministry of Railway. The management of the Club building including the auditorium, etc. has been entrusted by the Eastern Railway Administration to the Railway Cinema Club, Mughalsarai for the benefit of us members- In the year 1982, the auditorium of the Railway Cinema was hired to the petitioner for the period of five years for screening feature films. On the expiry of this period the Estate Officer, Eastern Railway acting under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act' hereafter) initiated proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that after the expiry of the period of the contract, he had become an unauthorised occupant.

(2.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality of the order passed by the Estate Officer directing the eviction of the petitioner from the said premises under section 5 of the Act as well as the order passed in appeal by the learned Vlth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, affirming the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

(3.) FOR invoking the aid of these provisions the main requirement is that the premises mustbelong to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government. If, therefore, any of these three elements is present, the premises would undoubtedly assume the status of 'public premises'. Undisputedly, the premises are owned by the Central Govt. This fact was not challenged before the courts below nor even in the petition or in the course of arguments before me As the premises are owned by the Railway Administration, it must follow in the absence of any compelling reason that the same 'belong to? the Railway Administration. Upon the plain terms of section 2 (e), therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the disputed premises fall within the ambit and scope of section 2 (e).