The Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,1973
Section 3. Un-authorised occupation of public premises
Applicable to both Haryana and Punjab
For the purposes of this Act. A person shall be deemed to be in unauthorized occupation of any public premises.
(a)Where he has whether before or after the commencement of this Act entered into possession thereof otherwise than under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant; or.
(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
(c ) Where any person authorized to occupy any public premises has, whether before or after of the commencement of this Act. ”
(i) sub-let, in contravention of the terms of allotment, lease or grant, without the permission of the State Government or of any other authority competent to permit such sub-letting, the whole or any part of such public premises, or
(ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorized to occupy such public premises.
Explanation :- For the purpose of clause (a), a person shall not merely by reason of the fact that he has paid any rent be deemed to have entered into possession as allottee, lessee or grantee.
The Word ” thereof in clause (a) of this section shows that in order that a person may be deemed to be in unauthorized occupation he must have centered into possession of public premises before the property was sold to Govt., he could not be said to have entered into the possession of public premises, because the property then belonged to the original owners (in this case the former Maharaja of erstwhile Patiala State). The title under which the property was possessed is not very relevant for this purpose. In this case the appellants were not even allottees, lessees or grantees so that clause (b) also did not apply, nor did (c) and therefore they were not in unauthorized possession. Raj Kumar Divender Singh V Punjab State. A.I.R. 1973 SC 66; 1972 PLJ 592 Rent CR 780 : (1973) 3 SCC 401.
By reference to clause (b) of this section it is clear that when the lease, grant or allotment is determined and thereafter the premises are not vacated the occupation thereof will be unauthorized. When the lease was terminated according to law, the owner will be entitled to invoke summary machinery under section 5 for the vacation thereof and claiming other relief under section 7. Dharam Vir, V Commissioner, Patiala. 1982 Rev. L.R. 285 = 1982 PLJ 157. The Punjab University was allowed to function as an inter State body corporate by virtue of section 72 (2) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act. The premises owned by it are public premises and on the expiry of the possession and would be liable to be evicated as also to pay rent and damages for use and occupation. Vinod Sood V Punjab University. 1982 Rev. L.R. 193.
Where though Govt. was the owner of certain property but a person was already in possession before the property vested in Govt it was held that such person cannot be said to have entered into unauthorized possession of public premises. The Court is not much concerned with the title under which such a person was in possession. What is relevant is the possession of the property before it was transferred to Govt. Banwari V State of Haryana ,1983 PLJ 6.