R.S. Narula, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners obtained the lease of a tea stall at the bus stand in sector 17, Chandigarh in an auction held on July 25, 1963, for one year commencing from August 1, 1963 and ending with July. 31, 1964. Their bid was of Rs. 2050 per mensem, which was the highest. For the next year, the lease was auctioned in June, 1965 and again the Petitioners gave the highest bid of Rs. 1925.00 per mensem. It has been stated by the Petitioners that the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, offered to give the lease for five years at Rs. 1925 -00 per mensem to the Petitioners which offer they accepted. This allegation has been denied in the written statement. The auction in favour of the Petitioners was not confirmed and the tea stall at the bus stand was ordered to be auctioned on July 1, 1965, for one year, with effect from August 1, 1965. This order was stayed by the Transport Minister on June 30, 1965. The lease of the tea stall was, however, auctioned on July 29, 1965, in favour of some other person. Since the Petitioners did not vacate the premises, the Estate Officer, Chandigarh passed an order against them on November 4, 1965, under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959, hereinafter called the Punjab Act, for the eviction of the Petitioners. The Petitioners filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, on April 26, 1966. The Petitioners filed C.W. 932 of 1966 against the order of the Estate Officer and the Commissioner which was dismissed on May, 10, 1966, by this Court. Against that judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court accepted the appeal on January 15, 1968 and the orders of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh and the Commissioner, Ambala Division, were quashed.
(2.) THE Estate Officer issued a fresh notice to the Petitioners on October 17, 1968, under Sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Central Act, calling upon the Petitioners to show cause on or before November 6, 1968, why an order of eviction should not be made against them. The Petitioners filed their objections and the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction against the Petitioners on April 14, 1969, which was proclaimed on April 22, 1969. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the Petitioners filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Chandigarh, on April 28, 1969, but it was dismissed on May 28, 1969. The Petitioners then filed the present petition in this Court on May 29, 1969, which was ordered to be heard immediately after the vacation with the other petitions admitted on the same point. Status quo was ordered to remain meanwhile. The return to the writ petition has been filed by Shri Gurdip Singh, Assistant Estate Officer, on behalf of Respondents 1 and 3.
(3.) THE only point argued before us is that the Central Act did not apply to the property in dispute by virtue of Section 88 of the Punjab Re -organisation Act, 1966 and the Act applicable was the Punjab Act. The learned Counsel has referred to the following provisions of the Punjab Re -organisation Act, 1966: 2(f) "Existing State of Punjab" means the State of Punjab as existing immediately before the appointed day. 4. Formation of Union Territory of Chandigarh. On and from the appointed day, there shall be formed a new Union Territory to be known as the Union territory of Chandigarh comprising such of the territories of Manimajra and Mahauli kanungo circles of Kharar tehsil of Ambala District in the existing State of Punjab as are specified in the Second Schedule and thereupon the territories so specified shall cease to form part of the existing State of Punjab. 48. Land and goods. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part, all land and all stores, articles and other goods belonging to the existing State of Punjab shall, - - (a) if within that State, pass to the successor State in whose territories they are situated; or 87. Powers to extend enactments to Chandigarh. The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, extend with such restrictions or modifications as it thinks fit, to the Union territory of Chandigarh any enactment which is in force in a State at the date of the notification. 88. Territorial extent of laws. The provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies and territorial references in any such law to the State of Punjab shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day. 95. Effect of provisions of the Act inconsistent with other laws. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that according to Section 88 the provisions of Part II (in which Section 4 occurs) are deemed not to affect any change in the territories to which the Punjab Act applied before November 1, 1966 and therefore, the tea stall which was being occupied by the Petitioners as lessees was to be deemed to have continued as the property of the Punjab State and governed by the Punjab Act and not the Central Act after November 1, 1966 -The learned Counsel has argued that the Union territory of Chandigarh was constituted under Section 4 of the Punjab Re -organisation Act and if that provision is to be ignored for the purposes of continuing the territorial limits of the enactments which were in force in the State of Punjab before re -organisation, the lands, stores, articles and other goods situated in the Union Territory of Chandigarh cannot be deemed to have passed from the State of Punjab to the Union territory of Chandigarh and for this reason the bus stand where the tea stall is located continued to be the property of the Punjab State governed by the Punjab Act. In spite of the ingenuity of the learned Counsel in advancing this argument, we are not impressed with the soundness thereof. The Central Act extends to the whole of India and applies to "Public premises" wherever situate. "Public premises" has been defined to mean any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of the Central Government. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the bus stand and the tea stall are "public premises" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Central Act but it is submitted that the Act that applies will not be the Central Act but the Punjab Act. The Punjab Act extends to the whole State of Punjab and "public premises" therein means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of, the State Government ... as defined in Section 2(d) of this Act. It is thus clear that the Central Act applies to public premises belonging to the Central Government wherever situate in the entire country, whereas the Punjab Act applies to public premises belonging to the Punjab State in the State of Punjab itself. The Punjab Act does not apply to any property of the Punjab State outside its territorial limits. We put it to the learned Counsel whether the Act applicable would have been the Central Act or the Punjab Act in case the bus stand had been acquired by the Central Government before the re -organisation of the State of Punjab in 1966 and his reply was that the Act applicable would have been the Central Act. We, therefore, fail to understand how the provision in Section 48 of the Punjab Re -organisation Act vesting the bus stand in Sector 17 along with the other lands in the Union territory of Chandigarh in the Central Government, makes any difference to the applicability of the Central Act to that land and the premises built thereon. In case these properties had continued to belong to the Punjab State the Act applicable would have been the Punjab Act irrespective of the fact that the Union territory of Chandigarh did not form part of the State of Punjab thereafter. The Central Act was applicable to the Union territory of Chandigarh even when it formed part of the State of Punjab in respect of the premises belonging to the Central Government. Section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, therefore, has made no difference to the applicability of that Act to the premises belonging to the Central Government situate in Chandigarh.;