Summary
The Supreme Court held that the State-controlled corporation was a government undertaking, but its lessee’s bare industrial plots were not government premises under the 1976 tenancy statute. The statutory definition of premises required a building, hut, room-seat or appurtenant land, and these separately leased plots remained vacant when eviction proceedings began. Summary eviction under that Act lacked jurisdiction; the corporation remained free to proceed under the specified public-land eviction law.
Issues
- Whether the corporation qualified as a government undertaking.
- Whether separately leased bare plots qualified as government premises permitting eviction under the 1976 Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c), West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976The corporation met the undertaking definition, but the separate bare plots did not satisfy the combined premises definitions. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 34)
Held
- The corporation derived its corporate status from the Companies Act and remained under State administrative control, with shares held by the State and its officers officially. It was a government undertaking under Section 2(b), contrary to the High Court’s conclusion on that point. (¶¶ 21, 22, 34)
- The definition of premises must be read into government premises. Appurtenant gardens, grounds and out-houses extend the building-related definition, but bare land is not independently included. A bare-land tenancy therefore falls outside the Act. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26)
- The relevant date was initiation of eviction proceedings. The leased plots still contained no structures then; the existence of the corporation’s administrative building elsewhere on the larger estate did not convert these separately leased plots into a single built premises. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- Eviction under the 1976 Act was without jurisdiction, but the corporation could seek eviction under the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34)
Result
Appeal dismissed with no costs, while correcting the finding on government-undertaking status. Liberty reserved to pursue eviction under the 1962 public-land statute.