SINHA, C.J. - (1.) This matter and a number of other matters, namely - C. R. 472 (W) of 1962, C.R. 807 (W) to 819 (W) of 1963, C.R. 939 (W) of 1963, C.R. 189 (W) to 194 (W) of 1964, C.R. 207 (W) and 208 (W) of 1964, C. R. 331 (W) of 1964. C.R. 610 (W) of 1964, C.R. 1121 (W) of 1964, C.R. 1218 (W) of 1964 and C.R. 994 (W) of 1964, have been referred to this Special Bench for disposal, as all of them involve a matter of great public importance, namely, the vires of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958 (Central Act 32 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). There has been common argument in all these cases and the point of law being the same, they will all be governed by the decision herein Distinctive features of each case will be considered separately. The facts in this case are briefly as follows: The petitioner No.1, Standard Literature Company Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "company") is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are directors and shareholders thereof. Prior to September 19, 1963 and commencing from the year 1915, this Company was a tenant in respect of room nos.22, 24, 27, 28 in the ground floor and Nos.46, 52, 56, 57, 58, 60, 64, 65, 66, 66/1 and 67 on the first floor, half of Nos.47 and 55 together with the use of the common staircase, in premises Nos. 13, 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3, Old Court House Street and Nos.1, 2 and 2/1 Mango Lane, in Calcutta under the previous owner, the Hercules Trading Corporation Private Ltd. On or about the 19th of September, 1963, the demised premises were purchased by the Union of India (the respondent No.1) and the company became a tenant under the said respondent on the same terms and conditions as before. On or about the 31st of March, 1964, the company received a notice to quit, stated to have been issued on behalf of the President of India calling upon them to quit and vacate the said premises on the expiry of the month of April, 1964. A copy of the said notice is annexed to the petition and marked with the letter 'A'. On the 20th April, 1964 the company, through one of its directors, objected to comply with the said notice. A copy of the said letter of objection is annexure 'B' to the petition. On or about the 22nd of April, 1964 a notice to quit was issued by the Deputy Director of Estates and Ex-officio Under Secretary to the Government of India, on behalf of the President of India, withdrawing the earlier notice dated 31st March, 1964 and calling upon the company to quit and vacate the said premises on the expiry of the month of May, 1964. It was stated in the said notice that a portion of the premises held by the company was urgently required by the Government of India for its own use for allotment to the Central Government offices, after remodeling the premises. A copy of this notice is annexure C to the petition. On 4th of May, 1964, the company objected to the said notice. On the 22nd of June, 1964 one Shri T. C. Jain, describing himself as the Estate Officer appointed under the said Act, purported to give notice under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act. It was stated in the said notice that the said Estate Officer was of the opinion, on grounds specified in the notice, that the company was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises mentioned in the schedule to the said notice and that it should be evicted from said premises. A copy of the said notice is annexure 'E' to the petition. On the 18th of August, 1964, a fresh notice was issued by the said Estate Officer asking the company to show cause under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act. The relevant part of the said notice is set out below: - Whereas I, the undersigned, am of opinion on the grounds specified below, that you are in unauthorized occupation of the public premises mentioned in the Schedule below and that you should be evicted from the said premises. GROUNDS The tenancy in favour of Messrs. Standard Literature Co. (P) Ltd., in respect of their occupation of a portion of premises Nos.13, 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3, Old Court House Street and 1, 2 and 2/1, Mangoe Lane, Calcutta, more fully described in the schedule below, has been terminated on the expiry of the month of May, 1964 by a notice dated 22.4.1965 from the Deputy Director of Estates and Ex-officio Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of W.H. and Rule (Directorate of Estates), New Delhi and they were called upon to quit, vacate and hand over possession of the accommodation to the Government but they have failed and neglected to do so. Now, therefore, in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act I hereby call upon you to show cause on or before the 2.9.1964 why such an order of eviction should not be made. SCHEDULE Room (s) Nos.22, 24, 27 and 28 on the ground floor, 46, 52, 56, 57, 58, 60, 64, 65, 66, 66/1 and 67 on the first floor, half of Nos.47 and 55 Common Staircase on the first floor in premises Nos. 13, 13/1, 13/2 and 13/3, Old Court House Street and 1, 2 and 2/1, Mangoe Lane, Calcutta containing an area of approximately 5.879 sft. On the 2nd of September, 1964, the company showed cause and objected to the vacating of the said premises. Thereafter there was a hearing before the Estate Officer and on the 27th November, 1964 the Estate Officer passed an order a copy of which is annexure 'H' to the petition. The company inter alia took the point that the provisions of the said Act are unconstitutional and void. The Estate Officer stated that he was unable to decide the constitutional point, although he gave his brief views with regard to the points that were raised. By the said order in exercise of the powers conferred on the said Officer under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act, the company was directed to vacate the said premises within thirty days of the date of the publication of the said order. It was stated that in the event of refusal or failure to comply with the said order the company and all other persons in occupation thereof were liable to be evicted from the said premises, if need be, by use of such force, as might be necessary. On the same date, the company gave notice demanding justice and made an application to this Court whereon, on the 10th of December, 1964 a Rule was issued by this Court calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing them to forbear from giving effect to the order dated 27th November, 1964 or why a writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued, setting aside or quashing the said order, for other reliefs. An interim order was passed which has been extended from time to time.
(2.) Before I proceed further, it will be necessary to consider the provisions of the said Act. The said Act of 1958 was preceded by the Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1950 (Central Act XXXVII of 1950). This Act was promulgated because Government was faced with the fact that many of its properties came to be in the occupation of unauthorized persons and it was found that if the ordinary legal remedies were to be pursued, there would be inordinate delay. This Act was challenged as ultra vires and in Jagu Singh v. M. Shaukat Ali, 91954) 58 Cal WN 1066, I held that the 1950 Act was ultra vires and void, as infringing the provisions of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Under the provisions of the 1950ac, the title of a citizen to property was to be decided upon the subjective satisfaction of the "competent authority" who may have no competence whatsoever to decide such a question, and behind the citizen's back, without giving him any opportunity of vindicating his title, and the jurisdiction of the civil court was taken away. I held that the provisions of the Act constituted a wholly unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right granted to a citizen of acquiring and holding property and as such was void. The same view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in Brigade Commander of Meerut v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1956 All 507. The Punjab High Court in Satish Chander v. Delhi Improvement Trust, AIR 1958 Punj. 1 held that the impugned Act did not offend against Article 14 but offended against the provision of Article 19(1)(f). As a result of these decisions, the said Act of 1958 was promulgated and came into operation on the 16.9.1958. It has been once repealed and amended by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1960 (Act 58 of 1960) and further amended by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Amendment Act, 1963 (Act 40 of 1963). The premises of the Act describes it as an Act "to provide for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from Public Premises and for certain incidental matters". Section 2(1) is the definition section. Clause (a) defines an "estate officer" as an officer appointed as such by the Central Government under S. 3. By clause (b) "public premises" has been defined to mean any requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government. By clause (e), "unauthorized occupation" in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority under which he was authorized to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined, for any reason whatsoever. Section 3(a) provides that the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint such persons being gazetted officers of Government or officers of equivalent rank of the Corporation or any committee or the authority referred to in clause (a) of Section 2 as it thinks fit to be estate officers for the purposes of the said Act. Sections 4 and 5 are the main operative Sections in the said Act and they are set out below: (1) If the Estate Officer is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the Estate Officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. (2) The notice shall - (a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and (b) require all persons concerned that is to say, all persons who are or may be in occupation of or claim interest in the public premises to show cause if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issue thereof. (3) The Estate Officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises and in such other manner as may be prescribed whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned. (4) Where the Estate Officer knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed. 5. (1) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under Section 4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Estate Officer is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorized occupation, the Estate Officer may on a date to be fixed for the purpose, make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the public premises shall be vacated by all persons who may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with the order of eviction within (thirty days) of the date of its publication under sub-section (1) the Estate Officer or any other officer duly authorized by the Estate Officer in this behalf may evict that person from, and take possession of, public premises and may for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary. Under Section 9, an appeal shall lie from every order of the Estate Officer to an appellant officer who shall be the District Judge of the district in which the public premises are situate or such other judicial officer in that district of not less than ten years standing as the District Judge may designate in this behalf Section 10, provides that every order made by an Estate Officer or an appellant officer shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding, and no injunction shall be grated by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the said Act Section 13 confers upon the Central Government the power to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of the said Act. It is this Act of 1958 which is challenged in this case as ultra vires. Before I proceed to deal with the points that have been raised it is necessary to refer to certain cases in order to clear the ground. The first is a Bench decision of this Court, Sankarlal Saha v. Superintendent Gun and Shell Factory, Cossipore, (1965) 69 Cal WN1035. In that case, S.K. Dutta, was of the opinion that said Act offends against both Arts. 19(1)(f) and 14of the Constitution R. N. Dutt, J however, disagreed with this part of the decision. However they were both agreed that an order, under Section 5 was not validly made in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to S. K. Dutta J. a person could not be in unauthorized occupation under any of the provisions of the said Act. He could only become a person in unauthorized occupation. If his tenancy or his right of occupation had been validly determined under any other law or if he was a trespasser. Both the learned Judges agreed that the reasons to be stated in a notice, under Section 4(2)(a) must be other than the bare fact that notice to quit had been given and the tenancy had been terminated. In the result, it cannot be said that the vires of the Act was decided in the said case. In a bench decision of the Punjab High Court Hari Kishan Das v. Union of India, AIR 1961 P&H 98, it was held that the said Act, or in other worlds, the very statute that we are concerned with in this case is valid and does not offend the provisions of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. In Sucha Singh v. Administrative Officer, Afzalgarh Colonization Scheme, Bijnore AIR 1963 All 528 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the U. P. Government Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent) Act 29 of 1953 was not unconstitutional. In Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 Punj 290 a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court upheld the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Lands (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act (31 of 1959). In my opinion, it is rather dangerous to examine and decide the vires of an Act by reference to decisions concerning the vires of other Statutes particularly if the one is a Central Statute and the other is a State legislation. We are informed, however, that the Punjab Act is analogously worded. Because of this, it may be useful to look into this decision which I shall do presently. I will now come to the several grounds which have been taken to this case, to challenge the vires of the said Act. Apart from the grounds challenging the constitutionality of the said Act, there is one point taken which is analogous to the point decided in the Division Bench decision of this Court presided over by S. K. Dutta, J. mentioned above, namely that the notice under Section 4 was defective, as no ground was given therein as required by law.
(3.) As regards the constitutional grounds they are as follows: (1) Under Section 4(1) of the said Act the condition precedent is that the Estate Officer should be of the opinion that persons are in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted. It is argued that the prescribed qualifications for being appointed as an estate officer under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the said Act does not remedy the objections that were put forward against the 1950 Act. A "gazetted officer" may even be a humble person like the personal assistant of a minister. To make property rights dependent on the subject satisfaction of such a person is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of a citizen to hold property under Article 19(1)(f). (2) The Estate Officer who forms a subjective opinion on the question of the eviction of a citizen is himself the person who is to adjudicate upon the objection of the citizen. This is in violation of the rules of natural justice and it is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of a citizen to hold property under Article 19(1)(f). (3) That the Act is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution because, (a) The provisions of the said Act are more onerous, drastic and prejudicial to the citizen than the provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and as such are discriminatory and ultra vires of the Constitution: (b) There is discrimination violative of Article 14 in making a distinction between persons in occupation of Government property and persons in occupation of private property which distinction has no relation to the object of the Act, nor establishes any intelligible differentia.;