K K VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a Judgment of Mr. Justice Desai and it raises a very short question as to the interpretation of Section 3 of the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950, being Act No. 27 of 1950. It is necessary to state only a few facts in order to understand and appreciate the legal arguments that are advanced before us.

(2.) THE respondent is a displaced person and he has a son in the army and a flat which is situated at Dhobi Talao was given to him under instructions from the Ministry of Defence on the basis that he was a dependant of an army officer and was a displaced person. It is not In dispute that a contractual monthly tenancy was created between the Union of India, which is the owner of these premises, and the respondents, and by notice to quit given on behalf of the Union on 25-6-1953, the tenancy was terminated. As the respondent did not hand over possession, as a matter of fact he had filed the petition from which this appeal arises on 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 "power to evict certain persons from Government premises. " Sub-section (2) of Section 3 gives the power to the competent authority to evict the person from, and take possession of, the premises and for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Section 4 confers the power upon the authority to recover damages. Section 5 provides for appeal to the Central Government. Section 6 ousts the jurisdiction of civil Courts and Section 9 is the penal section which makes a person liable to punishment if he obstructs the lawful exercise of any power conferred by or under the Act or contravenes any provision of the Act or of any rule or order made thereunder. Therefore, the statute is in the nature of a penal statute and there can be no doubt that it must be strictly construed in favour of the subject. Now, turning to Section 3, it provides:

(3.) BUT the real point of substance which has been seriously urged by Mr. Desai is that the case of the respondent falls under Sub-clause (b) and what we have to consider is whether a person who was lawfully in occupation of Government premises as a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated and who continues in possession of those premises can be described in law as a person in unauthorised occupation. Mr. Desai's contention is that on the notice to quit being given by the landlord and the landlord clearly expressing his intention that on the termination of the tenancy he wanted possession of the premises, the possession of the tenant after the termination became wrongful; it was against the express wish of the landlord and, therefore, the tenant became a trespasser. Mr. Desai further contends that the Legislature in using the present tense "is" was emphasizing the fact that the person against whom proceedings are to be taken is a person who was in unauthorised occupation at the date when the notice contemplated by Section 3 is to be issued and, therefore, Mr. Desai says that however lawful the possession of the tenant was at its inception, if it became unauthorised at the point of time emphasized by the Legislature, then Section 3 would apply to such a person and a notice can be issued against him.