A.N.Verma - (1.) THERE is a Railway Cinema Club at Mughalsarai. It has an auditorium fitted with a projector and other equipment used for the exhibition of films for the entertainment of the Railway Officers and employees. This cinema building is owned by the Central Government under the Ministry of Railway. The management of the Club building including the auditorium, etc. has been entrusted by the Eastern Railway Administration to the Railway Cinema Club, Mughalsarai for the benefit of us members- In the year 1982, the auditorium of the Railway Cinema was hired to the petitioner for the period of five years for screening feature films. On the expiry of this period the Estate Officer, Eastern Railway acting under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act' hereafter) initiated proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that after the expiry of the period of the contract, he had become an unauthorised occupant.
(2.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality of the order passed by the Estate Officer directing the eviction of the petitioner from the said premises under section 5 of the Act as well as the order passed in appeal by the learned Vlth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, affirming the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The impugned orders have been attacked by the petitioner on diverse grounds. But the main challenge urged in support of the petition at the Bar by Sri Ashok Khare was that the provision of the aforesaid Act were not available to the respondent in the present case inasmuch as the petitioner did not hold the premises directly from the Railway Administration. The submission was that as between the Railway Cinema Club and the petitioner the premises in question did not bear the character of 'public premises' within the meaning of the said Act, the premises not belonging to the Club itself. The learned counsel contended that as between the Railway Administration and the Railway Cinema Club, the premises may be regarded as 'public premises'. But where the premises are leased or hired to the occupant by an entity (the Club here) other than the Central Government, the premises could not be regarded as 'public premises' within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the aforesaid Act. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and given the matter an anxious consideration, I find no merit in this submission. The relevant provisions, viz., section 2 (e) (I) of the Act may be extracted here for appreciating the controversy. It reads : " (e) " public premises " means- (1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes any such premises which have been placed by that Government, whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980, under the control of the Secretariat of either House of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that Secretariate."
(3.) FOR invoking the aid of these provisions the main requirement is that the premises mustbelong to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government. If, therefore, any of these three elements is present, the premises would undoubtedly assume the status of 'public premises'. Undisputedly, the premises are owned by the Central Govt. This fact was not challenged before the courts below nor even in the petition or in the course of arguments before me As the premises are owned by the Railway Administration, it must follow in the absence of any compelling reason that the same 'belong to? the Railway Administration. Upon the plain terms of section 2 (e), therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the disputed premises fall within the ambit and scope of section 2 (e). Referring to the definition of 'public premises', however, the learned counsel submitted that the term 'belonging to' occurring in section 2 (e) should not be equated with the concept of ownership but should be understood to mean that the Central Government has some control or dominion over the premises Where, therefore, the Central Government leases the premises to another entity which, in its turn, sublets it to some outside agency, it was argued, the Central Government cannot be said to have that control or dominion over the premises so as to attract the application of the Act. The submission was entirely founded on a decision of the Punjab High Court in the case of Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1965 (1) ILR Punjab 19.;