- (1.) This appeal by special leave at the instance of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Meerut (briefly the defendants) is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 993 of 1960 whereby the High Court dismissed the same. The material facts are briefly as follows: The sole respondent (hereinafter described as the plaintiff) instituted suit No. 678 of 1956 on July 16, 1956, praying for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from recovering certain amount and from threatening to evict him from the 3/8th portion of the premises in suit in his occupation situated in Wright Gunj, Ghaziabad. The plaintiff describes himself as a duty allotted tenant of the portion of the house on a monthly rental of Rs. 4/4 of some time. He had offered the said rent, but neither the Government nor the owner of the premises accepted the same, when subsequently the District Magistrate wanted to eject him from the house, the plaintiff, by some arrangement, become the direct tenant of the landlord. The District Magistrate by a notice dated April 21, 1955, as stated therein, cancelled the allotment order "under which the plaintiff was holding the 3/8th portion of the house No. 36" and notified the plaintiff that he "shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of the Government premises under Section 3 of the U. P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952", (briefly the Act). Another notice was also sent to the plaintiff by the District Magistrate on October 14, 1955, calling upon him to vacate the said premises within thirty days of service of the notice failing which he would be liable to be forcibly evicted therefrom. A notice was also sent by the District Magistrate to the plaintiff under Section 12 to the Act on April 24, 1957, in supression of his earlier notice of November 24, 1956, assessing this time Rs. 1522/10/9 as damages at the rate of Rs. 21/6/6 per month for the unauthorised occupation of the premises from December 15, 1949 to November 21, 1955, inclusive of notice fee and interest to be realisable as arrears of Land Revenue under the Act. After serving a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on April 13, 1956, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif Ghaziabad. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds. Inter alia, according to them, the premises had been requisitioned under the Defence of India rules on July 26, 1946 and were derequisitioned on November 21, 1955. During the above period of requisition the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit premises from December 15, 1949 to November 21, 1955 without any valid allotment order under the Act. The amount was, therefore, assessed by the District Magistrate, who is the competent authority under the Act, on account of the plaintiffs unauthorised use and occupation during the period and the same could be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is not necessary to advert to the other pleas of the defendants for the purpose of this appeal. The trial Court decreed the suit allowing the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from proceedings against the plaintiff under the Act for recovery of the amount as arrears of Land Revenue. The other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were, however, refused. The defendants' appeal to the Second Civil Judge, Meerut, was dismissed. That led to the Section Appeal to the High Court which met with the same fate. Hence this appeal by special leave.
(2.) Before the High Court the appellants submitted that the premises in suit being "Government Premises" within the meaning of S. 2(c) of the Act, the suit was barred under Section 15 of the Act. There was dispute between the parties in the High Court with regard to the factum of requisition of the premises under the Defence of India Rules, 1939. The High Court, however, did not deal with this point as it contended itself by relying upon a decision of the same Court reported in Shri Sripat Rai v. District Magistrate, Banaras, 1955 All LJ 681 and held that "the Act cannot be made applicable to a case where the letting had been done prior to the passing of this Act". Since, according to the High Court, the plaintiff came into possession by virtue of an allotment order before the date of the passing of the Act, the State action under the Act was invalid and S. 15 was no bar to the suit. This decision in our view cannot be sustained.
(3.) Section 2(c) of the original Act defines Government premises as follows : "Government premises means any premises belonging to, taken on lease or requisitioned by the State Government". It is not necessary for this case to note the definition substituted in 1956.;