DR. MUKUNDA DAS AUDDY Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dated 28.4.1987 by which an application challenging the maintainability of a proceeding for recovery of possession initiated by the State of Sikim against the petitioner was dismissed. Only point which has been raised by the learned Counsel appearing in support of the application is that the State of Sikim is not exempted from the operation of the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Relevant provision in this regard is Sec. 1 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which provides as follows :

(2.) The underlined portion of the statute (underline has been provided by me for emphasis) leaves no manner of doubt that the provisions the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act do not apply to any premise; belonging to Government. The question is whether by the expression "Government" what is meant is the State Government or the Central Government or any Government The expression "Government" has not be a defined in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Recourse may therefore be had to the provisions of the General Clauses Act where the expression "Government" has been defined as follows:-

(3.) In the case of Ram Pratap Jaidayal Vs. Dominion of India, reports in AIR 1953 Bombay 170 High Court of Bombay held as follows:-