RAM CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3108 and 3157 of 1973 because the common question of law is involved in both these petitions. For the purpose of this judgment, the facts as contained in Civil Writ Petition No. 3108 of 1973 have been noticed.

(2.) Ram Chand, petitioner, was granted lease of the premises, in dispute, belonging to the Punjab University to run a canteen for the year 1966. His lease was terminated and thereafter he was served with a notice dated November 18, 1972 with effect from January 31, 1972 (Annexure 'B') to show cause as to why he may not evicted under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). After hearing the objections filed by the petitioner, an order for eviction was passed by the Estate Officer on March 12, 1973 (Annexure 'D'). The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated September 5, 1973 (Annexure 'E'). To challenge these orders, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only ground which was pressed into service at the time of the arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his petition was that the premises in dispute are not covered by the definition of the word 'public premises' as defined in clause (e) of Section 2 of the Act. The public premises, as defined in the said Act, so far as we are concerned in this petition, means the public premises owned by any corporation established by a Central Act or owned by the Central Government. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as the Punjab University has not been established under a Central Act nor is it owned and controlled by the Central Government, the premises in dispute would not be covered by the definition of the words 'public premises'. It is not disputed that the Punjab University was established under the East Punjab University Act, 1947. The State of Punjab was, however, reorganised in the year 1966 and by virtue of Section 72(1) of the Reorganisation Act, this University was allowed to function as inter-State body corporate and the Central Government was authorised to issue such directions as it may deem fit from time to time. By virtue of sub-clause (2) of Section 72 the Central Government was authorised to issue a direction that any law by which the said body corporate is governed shall, in its application to that body corporate, have effect, subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in this direction. In exercise of the said powers, the Central Government have amended the provisions of the East Punjab University Act from time to time. It is, therefore, evident that the University has continued to function because of the provisions of a Central Act, namely, the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and the provisions of the East Punjab University Act, are applicable because of the directions issued under sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Reorganisation Act. These facts would show that the East Punjab University Act is deemed to have been adopted by the Central Government and the Punjab University is being run under a Central Act.

(3.) A similar question arose in Civil Writ Petition No. 4193 of 1977 and the Motion Bench consisting of M.R. Sharma and A.S. Bains, JJ. opined that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the premises owned by the Punjab University. Although this order was passed at the motion hearing but I am in respectful agreement with observations made by the Division Bench and following the same hold that the premises in dispute are covered by the Act.