The Public Premises Act overrides State Rent Control laws regardless of whether the tenancy predated the Act.

The petitioner (Port Trust) is the owner of premises at 17 Taratala Road, Kolkata. A lease was executed for 30 years in 1947, which was further renewed in 1981 for another 30 years with effect from 1977.

The lease expired by efflux of time on June 30, 2007. The petitioner issued a notice to quit on May 28, 2008, alleging non-payment of rent (Rs. 2.15 Crores) and unauthorized occupation.

The Estate Officer, acting under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ("1971 Act"), ordered eviction and payment of damages (totaling approx. Rs. 9.41 Crores) in 2013.

The Opposite Party (IJIRA) appealed to the District Court, which set aside the eviction order on January 6, 2024, holding that the 1971 Act was not retrospective and did not apply to tenancies created prior to 1958, and that IJIRA, being "State" under Article 12, was protected by government guidelines.

The Port Trust filed this revisional application before the High Court.

1. Whether the 1971 Act applies to premises where the occupant entered into possession prior to the enforcement of the Act or prior to September 16, 1958.

2. Whether the Opposite Party, as an entity approved by the Ministry of Textiles, is exempt from eviction proceedings under the 1971 Act by virtue of Central Government guidelines.

The court primarily applied Section 2(e) (defining public premises) and Section 2(g) (defining unauthorized occupation) of the 1971 Act.

It relied on the Three-Judge Bench decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Vita (2026) 3 SCC 427, which overruled Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Vita decision established that the 1971 Act overrides State Rent Control Acts regardless of when the tenancy was created.

Furthermore, the court cited Ashoka Marketing Limited vs. Punjab National Bank (1990) 4 SCC 406, affirming that the 1971 Act is a special statute meant for speedy recovery of public property and takes precedence over general or local rent laws.

The High Court found that the appellate court’s reliance on Suhas H. Pophale was a "patent illegality" because that decision had been expressly overruled by a larger bench in Vita.

The Court reasoned that "occupation" is a continuous process; hence, the date of initial entry (1947) is irrelevant if the occupation becomes unauthorized (due to lease expiry in 2007) while the 1971 Act is in force.

Regarding the Opposite Party’s status, the Court analyzed communication from the Ministry of Textiles confirming IJIRA was no longer an affiliated body and observed that the 2002 Government Resolution/Guidelines were merely "advisory" and did not create a legal embargo against evicting an unauthorized occupant who defaulted on rent.

Since the lease had expired by efflux of time and the Port Trust was a public authority, the premises fell squarely under the 1971 Act.

The Court set aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Alipore, for misinterpreting the law on retrospectivity.

The High Court upheld the Estate Officer’s 2013 order and granted the petitioner liberty to proceed with the eviction and recovery of damages.