Public Premises Act overrides Rent Control Act regarding eviction of unauthorized occupants and bars civil court jurisdiction.

The Respondent filed a suit (R.A.D. Suit No. 660 of 2012) in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai seeking a declaration of tenancy and protection from dispossession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act regarding premises owned by the Applicant, LIC

The Applicant is a statutory corporation under the LIC Act, 1956

The Applicant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, contending that the Small Causes Court lacked jurisdiction because the premises are "public premises" governed by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ("PP Act")

Meanwhile, an Estate Officer under the PP Act had already issued an eviction order against the Respondent, which was stayed pending appeal in the City Civil Court

The Trial Court rejected the Applicant’s Order VII Rule 11(d) application on March 1, 2021, leading to this revision

The court primarily applied Section 2(e) and Section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which defines "public premises" and expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of eviction and arrears of rent concerning such premises

Constitution Bench decision in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (1990), which established that the PP Act, being a special law, overrides State Rent Control Acts

Supreme Court's three-judge bench decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Vita (2025), which overruled Dr. Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. and settled that the PP Act applies retrospectively to tenancies created before the premises became "public premises"

The Court noted that the Respondent's own pleadings admitted the Applicant is a Public Sector Undertaking, satisfying the definition of "public premises" under Section 2(e) of the PP Act

Referring to the Vita decision, the Court observed that the Supreme Court has now explicitly clarified that the PP Act overrides Rent Control Acts regardless of when the tenancy was created

Once a person is deemed an "unauthorised occupant" of public premises, they cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act

Since the suit sought reliefs purely under the Rent Control Act for a property covered by the PP Act, Section 15 of the PP Act creates an absolute bar on the Small Causes Court’s jurisdiction

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application and rejected the Respondent's plaint (R.A.D. Suit No. 660 of 2012) under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC

At the Respondent's request, the implementation of this order was stayed for six weeks