- (1.) Tilak Raj petitioner took on lease a tea-stall located at bus-stand in Sector 17, Chandigarh, vide registered lease-deed for two years effective from 14-3 1972 to 13-3-1974 at the rate of Rs. 4,800/- per mensem. The lease-deed envisaged the extension of the lease period by one year in the event of the satisfaction of the Chandigarh Administration about the performance and conduct of the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the lessee. Before the expiry of his aforesaid lease period, he applied to the Chandigarh Administration for the extension of the lease which request was declined vide order dated 6-3-1974. The lessee, on the strength of a clause in the lease-deed for reference of any dispute arising thereunder to the arbitrator, got a reference made to the arbitrator to decide the dispute regarding the extension of the lease period. The Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, vide his award dated 22-6-1974, held that the lessee was not entitled to the extension of the lease. When the aforesaid award was sought to be made rule of the Court by the Chandigarh Administration, respondent No. 1, the lessee raised objections thereto. His objections were still pending decision in the Civil Court when on 285- 1975 respondent No. 3, Estate Officer. Union Territory, Chandigarh, served upon the lessee a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, requiring him to vacate the premises. The lessee has impugned the aforesaid notice and the action of the Chandigarh Administration in the present writ petition, primarily, on four grounds: (1) that the lessee cannot be considered an unauthorised occupant in terms of Section 4 of the Act; (2) that since the Estate Officer, respondent No. 3, prior to the issuance of the Impugned notice had participated in a meeting in which a decision had been taken to issue the impugned notice to the lessee, so he was incompetent to issue the impugned notice as in doing so he acted in violation of principles of natural justice; (3) that action of the respondent Chandigarh Administration in evicting the lessee was discriminatory being violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in that in regard to the other lessees of Chandigarh Administration the lease period was extended from time to time on raising of the rent by twenty per cent after every 5 years; and (4) that since the Union Territory of Chandigarh is an entity distinct and separate from the Central Government, so no Central Act, including the Act in question, would become applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh unless they are validly extended to it by a competent authority, and the impugned Act having not been so extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by any competent Authority, the action taken thereunder by the respondents in issuing the notice of eviction is clearly illegal. Taking Mr. N.L. Dhingra's (learned counsel for the petitioner) last submission first, the argument advanced by him is that by virtue of the provisions of Section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Reorganisation Act, all laws, as denned in Section 2 (g) of the Reorganisation Act, that were in force in the erstwhile State of Punjab prior to the appointed day viz., 1-11-1966, continued to apply to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and, therefore, it is the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act, that was to govern the eviction of persons from the premises belonging to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
(2.) The relevant provisions in the Punjab Act at this stage deserve to be noticed. They read: "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-- ***** (d) 'public premises' means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the State Government, or requisitioned by the competent authority under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953, and includes any premises belonging to any district board, municipal committee, notified area committee or panchayat; ***** (3) For purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any public premises- ***** (b) where he, being an allottee, lessee or grantee, has, by reason of the determination or cancellation of his allotment, lease or grant in accordance with the terms in that behalf therein contained, ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold such public premises; or *****."
(3.) Referring to the expression 'belonging to ..... the State Government' occurring in the definition of the term 'Public Premises', Mr. Dhingra urged that by virtue of the provision of Sections 4 and 7 of the Reorganisation Act, read with the definition of 'State', in Section 3, Clause (58), of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Union Territory of Chandigarh for the purposes of the application of the Punjab Act shall have to be construed as 'State' in the event of the necessary adaptation to the Punjab Act having not been carried out by the authority competent as envisaged in Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act. The learned counsel stressed that the provision of Section 90 of the Reorganisation Act authorises the Court to so read the said Act as if the requisite adaptations had been carried out in order to apply the laws made applicable by the provision of Section 88 of the Reorganisation Act.;