SATISH CHANDER Vs. DELHI IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question whether the Government Premises (Eviction) Act 27 of 1950 is ultra vires of the Legislature on the ground that it offends certain principles laid down in the Constitution of India has arisen in a large number of cases pending in this Court, including a number of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as in a reference by a Subordinate Judge to the High Court under the provisions of Section 113, Civil Procedure Code. Several of these cases, including the reference, have been placed before the Bench for hearing today and we have decided that the best method of dealing with the matter is to answer the question referred to the Court by the Subordinate Judge under Section 113, civil Procedure Code, and to leave the writ petitions to be decided by Single Judges in accordance with the answer given to the question referred to us and any special features which may arise in the individual cases.

(2.) The suit in which the reference has been made was filed by two brothers, Satish Chandar and Suresh Chandar, against the Delhi improvement Trust and certain pro forma defendants, who are apparently related to the plaintiffs, on the allegation that some land belonging to the Government situated inside Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, had been leased for 90 years to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants for the purpose of building ships and subsequently on a partition among the descendants of Bengali Mal the lease-hold rights had become the exclusive property of the plaintiffs. Shortly before the suit was instituted, however, the Chairman of the Delhi Improvement Trust acting as a Competent Authority under the Government Premises (Eviction) Act issued a notice under Section 3 of the Act calling on the plaintiffs to surrender possession of the land within fifteen days on the ground that the lease had been terminated by the Delhi Improvement Trust which was managing the property. The suit was instituted for a declaration that the notice issued by the Chairman of the Trust as competent authority was invalid and illegal on various grounds one of which was that the Government Premises (Eviction) Act was ultra vires as it offended the provisions of the Constitution. At the same time the defendant raised the plea based on Section 6 of the Act that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and preliminary issues were framed on these two points. The learned Subordinate Judge has only dealt with the question of the validity of the Act, which apparently has already been held to be ultra vires by a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case Jagu Singh v. Shaukat Ali, 58 Cal W. N. 1066 (A) and also by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case Brigade Commander, Meerut Sub-Area v. Ganga Prasad, (S) AIR 1956 Ml. 507 (B). In the circumstances, with the agreement of the learned counsel for the defendant in the suit, he framed the question. "Is the Government Premises (Eviction) Act or any provisions thereof ultra vires of the Constitution?" and has referred it to this Court under the provisions of Section 113, Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) In dealing with the matter it is necessary first to give some description of the impugned Act which begins with the words "Act to provide for the eviction of certain persons from Government Premises and for certain matters connected, therewith.'' The following abstract from the statement of objects and reasons appears to be relevant.