RAJEEV SOOD Vs. STATE OF BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the motion of a learned single Judge of this Court (Justice Surinder Singh, J.) the Hon'ble Chief justice has referred the present Civil Revision to our Bench for answering the following question:-"whether the "public Premises Act" would apply to a private landlord for seeking the vacation of the leased premises in favour of the Government/statutory body, situated in an urban area ?

(2.) FACTS leading to the making of the reference lie in a very narrow compass. Revision-petitioners Rajeev Sood and others are the owners of a five-storeyed building situated within the Municipal limits of Shimla town. The building was let out to the State bank of India, respondent herein, on monthly rent of Rs. 5,250/- in the year 1979 for being used as residences by the Officers and the employees of the respondent-Bank. It appears that the tenancy was from month to month basis. After some time, revision-petitioners required the premises for their personal use. So, they filed a petition, under Section 14 of the H. P. Urban Rent Con-trol Act, seeking eviction of the respondent-Bank. Petition was allowed by the Rent Controller. Respondent-Bank filed appeal before the Appellate Authority, Shimla By the time the appeal was heard by the Appellate Authority (appeal was heard and decided in november 2001), a learned single Judge of this Court gave the ruling in case titled New bank of India v. Sukhbir Singh Sethi (1998 (2) CLJ (HP) 69) that premises let out by a private individual to a bank (a statutory corporation) are "public premises" and the landlord of such premises can seek eviction of the tenant - bank (statutory Corporation) only under the provisions of the Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and the Rent Controller, appointed under the Rent Control Act, does not have any jurisdiction in such matters. Relying upon this ruling, Appellate Authority accepted the appeal of respondent-State bank of India and dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioners.

(3.) REVISION-PETITIONERS approached this court by filing the present petition, i. e. Civil revision No. 23 of 2002. When the matter was listed before the learned single Judge (Justice Surinder Singh, J.), it was argued on behalf of the revision-petitioners that the view taken by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid New Bank of India v. Sukhbir singh Sethi's case was not correct. Reliance was placed upon a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Nisha v. Punjab National Bank, (2000 (2) RCR 634): (AIR 2000 delhi 439), wherein it has been held that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act conceives no situation where Government or a Statutory Authority itself may be in "unauthorized occupation" and its eviction may be ordered under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act.