Thereafter, the said Bank initiated proceedings under the Rent Control Act against both the appellants.
The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein he challenged the validity of the order passed by the Estate Officer.
864 of 1985, this Court had passed interim orders staying the eviction of the petitioners in those matters.
Writ Petition No.
1 in the writ petition was in occupation of a part of the said property as a tenant under M s Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd. since 1948.
The appellants in Civil Appeals Nos.
During the pendency of these appeals interim orders were passed by this Court whereunder posses sion of a part of the premises was restored to the appel lants.
3725 of 1986 and Writ Petition No.
864 of 1985, relates to premises in the building located at 10, Darya Ganj, New Delhi.
The Life Insurance Corpora tion gave a numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating a tenancy of petitioner No.
1 became a tenant of the Life Insurance Corporation.
M s Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd., peti tioner No.
Aggrieved by the said orders of the High Court, the appellants have filed these appeals after obtaining special leave to appeal.
The said building belongs to Allahabad Bank, a body companyporate companystituted under the provisions of the Banks Nationalisation Act.
2368 and 2369 of 1986 had been dispossessed from the premises in their occu pation after the dismissal of their appeals by the Addition al District Judge.
After the expiry of the said period eviction proceedings under the provisions of the Public Premises Act were initi ated to evict the appellant and in those proceedings the Estate Officer passed an order dated March 29, 1986.
2368 of 1986 and M s Sahu Jain Services Ltd. Appellant No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.1986 of the Delhi High Court in CW No.
Delhi.
In the proceedings, under the Public Premises Act, the Estate Officer passed orders for eviction against the appellants and the appeals filed by the appellants against the said orders of the Estate Officer were dismissed by the Additional District Judge.
The said premises were let out to Pt.
Feeling aggrieved by these numberices the petitioners have filed the writ petition.
In those proceedings an objection was raised by the said appellants that proceedings for eviction under the Rent Control Act were number maintainable in view of the provisions companytained in the Public Premises Act.
2368 and 2369 of 1986 relate to the premises which are part of a building situated at 5 Parlia ment Street, New Delhi.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Kapil Sibbal, Addi tional Solicitor General.
The life insurance business was nationalised under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 whereby the Life Insurance Corporation was established and the life insurance business carried on by the various insurance companypanies, including M s Bharat Insurance Company Ltd., was nationalised and vested in the Life Insurance Corporation.
K. Venugopal, A.K. Ganguli, Yogeshwar Prasad, P.R. Seetharaman, S.K. Gupta and A.K. Srivastava for the Appel lants.
K.B. Parsai, the appellant in this appeal, for a period of three years with effect from, February 1, 1982.
Since these appeals have been dismissed the appel lants in both the appeals are directed to handover the possession of the portion of the premises in their occupa tion to the Respondent Bank within one month.
Civil Appeal No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant has filed this appeal against the said decision of the Delhi High Court after obtaining Spe cial Leave to Appeal.
The said writ petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court by order dated August 7, 1986.
The said building originally be longed to Punjab National Bank Ltd., a banking companypany.
1 in Civil Appeal No.
During the pendency of the said proceedings under the Rent Control Act, proceedings were initiated by the Estate Officer against the appellants under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and while the said proceedings under Public Premises Act were pending the earlier proceedings initiated under the Rent Control Act were dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, by orders dated August 6, 1979.
As a result petitioner No.
In Civil Appeal No.
Since the appeal and the writ petition are being dismissed the said interim orders shall stand vacated.2368 of 1986 Etc.
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Appellate No.
2369 of 1986 were tenants of premises located in the said building since July 1st, 1958.
G.L. Sanghi, S. Ganesh, Mrs. Sushma Suri, EMS Anam, Atul Namda.
The said writ peti tions were dismissed by the High Court by orders dated May 30, 1986.
The appellants filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the Delhi High Court.
1 in Civil Appeal No.
The said building originally belonged to Bharat Insurance Company Limited, as Insurance Company which was carrying on life insurance business.
As a result of the enactment of the Banking Companies Acquisi tion and Transfer of Undertakings Act.
In short, the ques tion is, whether the provisions of the Public Premises Act would override the provisions of the Rent Control Act in relation to premises which fall within the ambit of both the enactments.
1970 hereinafter referred to as the Banks Nationalisation Act , the under taking of the Punjab National Bank Ltd., was transferred and vested in Punjab National Bank a body companyporate companystituted under the provisions of the said Act and the aforesaid appellants became the tenants of Punjab National Bank.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. The companymon question which arises for companysideration in these appeals, by special leave, and the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is, whether a person who was inducted as a tenant in premises, which are public premises for the purpose of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Public Premises Act , and whose tenancy has expired or has been terminated, can be evicted from the said premises as being a person in unautho rised occupation of the premises under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and whether such a person can invoke the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act .
Aman Vachher, S.K. Mehta, Kailash Vasdev and S.R. Srivastava for the Respondents.
1 with effect from, August 31, 1953 and thereafter proceedings for eviction were initiated against petitioner No.
Civil Appeals Nos.
1295 of 1986.
3725 of 1986 relates to an office room in the Allahabad Bank Building situated at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
1 under the provisions of the Public Premises Act and numberices dated December 15, 1984 were issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4 1 and Section 7 3 of the Public Premises Act.
By numberices dated May 18, 1971 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenancies of both the appel lants were terminated by Punjab National Bank, with effect from, November, 30, 1971.
