Public Premises Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws For Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants : Supreme Court Overrules 2014 Ruling

In an important development, the Supreme Court on Thursday (December 11) observed that once premises fall within the definition of “public premises” and a tenancy is legally terminated, unauthorized occupants cannot claim the protection of State Rent Control Acts and must face eviction under the summary procedure laid out in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (“PP Act”).

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria overruled the judgment of Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 (4) SCC 657, calling it an incorrect interpretation that contradicted a binding Constitution Bench precedent of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank, 1990 (4) SCC 406, which held that PP Act overrides over the State tenancy laws irrespective of the date of entering into a tenancy.

Ignoring the constitution bench dictum, in Suhas H. Pophale (supra), a two-judge bench created a distinction based on the date of tenancy, protecting tenants who entered before the premises became "public premises." The Court had said that the PP Act could not be applied to tenants who were in occupation of premises before it became "public premises" (i.e., before it was acquired by a government entity like LIC or a nationalized bank). For such occupants, the protective umbrella of the State Rent Control Act was held to continue to apply.

Background

The case involved LIC seeking to evict Vita Private Limited from a flat in Mumbai. Vita had become a tenant in April 1957, long before the PP Act came into force retrospectively from September 16, 1958, and before LIC's establishment. When LIC initiated eviction under the PP Act after terminating the tenancy, Vita resisted, claiming protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

The Bombay High Court, relying on the Suhas Pophale (2014) ruling, sided with the tenant and quashed the eviction order, prompting LIC to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In view of the divergence of opinion, a two-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.

Observation

Answering the reference, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria criticized the High Court for failing to adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis while ignoring the binding precedent of Ashoka Marketing Ltd.(supra), delivered much before the decision of Suhas Pophale (supra).

The Court held that the PP Act is a later and special law designed specifically to deal with unauthorized occupation of public premises and that it necessarily prevails over conflicting provisions of State Rent Control statutes. It further held that the date on which a tenant entered the premises is irrelevant for determining the applicability of the PP Act.

As a sequitur, the Court reiterated the propositions of law laid in Ashoka Marketing (supra) as follows:

(i) Both categories of statutes namely, the PP Act 1971 on one hand, and the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and similar Rent Control Legislations, on the other hand, are special laws. Therefore, in order to determine as to which Act will apply in case of conflict, reference has to be made to the purpose and policy underlying the two enactments and the clear intendment conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions therein. Keeping in view the object and purpose underlying both the enactments, that is, the PP Act 1971 and the Rent Control Acts, the provisions of the PP Act 1971 shall override the provisions in the Rent Control Legislations.

(ii) The PP Act 1971 and the State Rent Control Acts are special enactments in themselves. Rule generalia specialibus non derogant will not apply. Having regard to the purpose, policy and legislative intent of the PP Act 1971, the same would prevail over the State Rent Control Acts in respect of eviction of 'unauthorised occupants' of 'public premises' as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act.

(iii) The provisions of PP Act 1971, to the extent they cover the premises falling within the ambit of Rent Control Act, override the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

(iv) A person in unauthorised occupation of 'Public Premises' under Section 2(e) of the Act cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act.

(v) In cases where the tenanted premises are claimed to be governed by the State Rent Control Act and the same have also become 'Public Premises' within the meaning in Section 2(e) of the PP Act 1971, for their unauthorised occupation, the PP Act 1971 will have the application.

(vi) The statutory machinery envisaged under the PP Act 1971, could be activated for recovery of possession of public premises by any Government or public entity mentioned in the definition.

(vii) The PP Act 1971 will apply to the tenancies which may have been created and in existence either before coming into force of the Act or which may have been created subsequent to coming into the force of the Act.

(viii) Two conditions must be satisfied for the applicability as above. Firstly, the tenanted premises must fall within the purview of definition under Section 2(e) of the PP Act 1971. Secondly, the premises should have been in unauthorised occupation.

(ix) Termination of tenancy of 'Pubic Premises' by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is one of the modes which would render the occupation of the tenant unauthorised, post the date specified in such notice. This would hold true in respect of tenancies created before or after coming into force of the PP Act 1971.

(x) Invocation and applicability of the provisions of the PP Act 1971 is not dependent upon the aspect of possession. What is material is the occupation of the premises which has become unauthorised occupation. The occupation is a continuous concept.

(xi) The propositions enunciated in Suhas H. Pophale , as noticed in paragraph 3.3.6 of this judgment, do not, in our considered view, state the correct position of law. The observations made therein, with great respect, are not in consonance with the settled legal principles and runs contrary to the principle of stare decisis and stand overruled to that extent.

The reference was answered accordingly.

Cause Title: LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. VERSUS VITA (and connected matters)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1198

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR Ms. Geetanjali Das Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Ankur Mittal, AOR Ms. Muskan Jain, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Adv. Mr. Aryam Chora, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Poddar, AOR Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR  Mr. Nishant Anshul, Adv. Mr. O. P. Gaggar, AOR Mr. Sachindra Karn, Adv. Mr. Bahar U. Barqi, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Ali Safeer Farooqui, Adv. Ms. Shreya Gulam, Adv. Mr. Rahat Ali Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohd Faisal, Adv. Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. K. Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Tina Garg, AOR Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Mr. Syed Rehan, Adv. Mr. Md Shahid Anwar, Adv. Mr. Jagannath Rao, Adv. Ms. Ayesha Fatma, Adv. Mr. Md. Shahid Anwar, AOR Mr. Gaurav Goel, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR Ms. Priya Sirohi, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh K, Adv. Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Mr. Shubham Chandankhede, Adv. Mr. S. Rajappa, AOR Ms. G Dhivysri, Adv. Mr. R Gowrishankar, Adv. Mr. Pv Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukund P. Unny, AOR Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. Karan Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Nair S, Adv. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Adv. Ms. Geetanjali Das Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Dr. Anindita Pujari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR Mr. Shaileshwar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Randhir Singh Jain, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sambhavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Hargun Singh Kalra, Adv. Mr. V. Y. Sanglikar, Adv. Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Singh, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Dhaval Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Amir Arsiwala, AOR Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Farid F. Karachiwala, AOR Ms. Sanya Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Krutika Mehta, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mr. Rahul Negi, Adv. Mr. Amitava Poddar, Adv. Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR Ms. Gunjan Rathore, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. 4 Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mr Vishnu Mehra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Negi, Adv. Ms. S. Ramamani, AOR Mr. Aakarsh Kamra, AOR Mr. Viren Ashar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Manjit Singh Gill, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Ms. Swati Vishan, Adv. Mr./Ms. Mahi Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR Mrs. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jns Tyagi, Adv.