- (1.) (On behalf of himself and Subba Rao C. J. and Vaidialingam, J.) - This appeal, by certificate, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab dismissing the appellant's writ petition which challenged the validity of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act XXXI of 1959.
(2.) In or about September, 1953, the State of Punjab leased the "Mount View Hotel" at Chandigarh to the appellants for a period of six years commencing from September 24, 1953 at an annual rent of Rupees 72 000 subsequently reduced to Rs. 50,000. The deed of lease of the said Hotel, however was drawn up and executed on May 21, 1959. On or about August 27, 1959, the Government offered to sell the said Hotel to the appellants at a price of Rs. 12,00,000. Since the appellants did not accept the said offer the same was withdrawn and as the said period of six years had by that time expired, the Government called upon the appellants to hand over vacant possession on or before January 1, 1960. On January 1, 1960 the Estate Officer and Collector, Capital Project, Chandigarh served the appellants with a notice alleging that their occupation of the said Hotel had become unauthorised after December 31, 1959 and required them under Section 4 of the Act to show cause on or before January 11, 1960 as to why an order of eviction should not be passed against them. The appellants, in the meantime filed the writ petition in the High Court, and obtained an interim stay against any order of eviction
(3.) The appellants contended in the High Court (1) that the Act discriminated between the occupants of public premises and those of private property and also discriminated between the former inter se and, therefore , infringed their right of equality before law and equal protection under Art. 14 of the Constitution, (2) that the Act infringed their right to property, (3) that the procedure laid down in S. 5 of the Act infringed rules of natural justice and (4) that the said notice was invalid as it did not give ten clear days as required by S. 4 (2) (b) of the Act. The High Court negatived contentions 2, 3 and 4. As regards the first contention, it held that as appearing from the preamble, the object and the provisions of the Act , the Act substituted the remedy of the Govt. of eviction as a landlord under the ordinary law, that is that by reason of the Act, the Government could only resort to the remedy under the Act and not by way of a suit for eviction and that the Act impliedly did away with the Government's right to sue under the Civil Procedure Code in respect of public properties and premises that there was a valid classification between the occupiers of public premises and those of private property and that as the Act was substitutive and not supplemental there was no question of discrimination also between the occupiers of public premises inter se. The High Court, however, agreed that if the Act furnished a 'supplemental' and not a 'substitutive' remedy, the contention as to discrimination would be one of substance. The reasons for holding that the Act impliedly repealed the ordinary law of eviction in respect of public property and premises were that the Act covered the entire subject-matter of law relating to eviction, that the two laws could not have been intended to exist simultaneously, that the preamble and the provisions of the Act lent themselves to the deduction that it was intended to substitute the general law of eviction as applicable to public premises, that the object of the Act was to discard the cumbersome procedure under the ordinary law involving delay and to provide a special and speedier remedy and lastly that though the absence of express words of repeal may raise a presumption that the pre-existing law was not repealed that presumption was offset by a comparison of the two laws which demonstrated the legislative intent to supplant the ordinary law.;