MUNICIPAL BOARD CHUNAR Vs. ADDITIONAL S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the U. P. Tenancy Act. 1939 (the Tenancy Act for short), a 'law relating to land tenure' within the meaning of the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 [the Act for short)? Is land held by a tenure holder under the Tenancy Act. 'premises' within the meaning of the Act? These questions arise for determination in these four writ petitions. This is how they arise. FACTS

(2.) The property in dispute is Nazul property. The concerned District Magistrate had leased it out in favour of the predecessor-in -interest of the contesting respondents. The notified area committee had renewed it for a term. Subsequently, the lessees transferred the property in favour of the contesting respondents. After expiry of the period of the leases, a notice was issued to the contesting respondents under the Act for their eviction in proceedings initiated by the Municipal Board, Chunar. Mirzapur (The Board for short). It is not disputed that now the Board manages the property. The Courts below have dismissed the proceedings on the ground that property in dispute is not premises under the Act. Hence these writ petitions. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

(3.) I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai and Sri. R. N. Singh learned counsel for the parties. The following points arise for determination : (i) Is the Tenancy Act a law relating to land tenure within the meaning of the Act? (ii) Is the land in question 'public premises' under the Act? (iii) Are the contesting respondents in unauthorised occupation of the same? 1st POINT : THE TENANCY ACT-LAW RELATING TO LAND TENURE