Three-Judge Bench Holds Public Premises Act Prevails Over State Rent Laws and Overrules Two-Judge Clarification

A three-Judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria heard a reference arising from conflicting two-Judge and Constitution Bench precedents on the interplay between the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act) and various State Rent Control legislations. The reference concerned whether the PP Act operated prospectively or whether its provisions would override State Rent Control laws in respect of premises that became “public premises” following acquisition, nationalisation or vesting in government-controlled entities.

The Court answered the reference by reaffirming the law laid down by the larger Benches in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank and M/s. Jain Ink Manufacturing Co. and held that the two-Judge decision in Suhas H. Pophale was “palpably incorrect” and did not hold the field insofar as it conflicted with those precedents. The Court summarized that both the PP Act and the Rent Control Acts are “special statutes” and, having regard to their purposes and policy, the PP Act would override Rent Control legislations in relation to eviction of “unauthorised occupants” of “public premises.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The provisions of the PP Act 1971, to the extent they cover the premises falling within the ambit of Rent Control Act, override the provisions of the Rent Control Act.” The judgment reiterated that “a person in unauthorised occupation of public premises under Section 2(e) of the Act cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act,” and explained that applicability under the PP Act depended on (i) whether the premises fell within Section 2(e) and (ii) whether the occupation was unauthorised, noting that “invocation and applicability of the provisions of the PP Act 1971 is not dependent upon the aspect of possession. What is material is the occupation of the premises which has become unauthorised occupation.”

Background The reference arose from Civil Appeal No. 2638 of 2023 (Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. v. Vita Pvt. Ltd.), treated as the lead matter in a batch of appeals and Special Leave Petitions. The appellant LIC, a statutory corporation, owned a flat let to the respondent company since about April 1957. The PP Act came into force on 23 August 1971 and was given retrospective effect from 16 September 1958 by Section 1(3). LIC issued notices terminating tenancy and, after alleged trespass and non-compliance, sought eviction under Sections 5 and 7 of the PP Act before the Estate Officer; an eviction order followed in March 2012. The City Civil Court dismissed the occupants’ appeal but the Bombay High Court quashed the City Civil Court’s order in June 2014, relying on the two-Judge decision in Suhas H. Pophale which had read the PP Act as prospective in effect and carved out categories of occupants who would remain governed by State Rent Acts.

A two-Judge Bench of this Court had earlier referred the conflict between Suhas H. Pophale and the Constitution Bench decision in Ashoka Marketing to a larger Bench. The present three-Judge Bench heard extensive submissions, including those by the Attorney General of India and senior counsel for the appellants and respondents, and analysed earlier authorities including the five-Judge Ashoka Marketing, the three-Judge M/s. Jain Ink, and the two-Judge Suhas H. Pophale. The Court found that Suhas H. Pophale had “overlooked, ignored and disregarded” precedents and that a Bench of lesser strength could not depart from the law laid down by a larger Bench. The Court answered the reference by overruling the contrary propositions in Suhas H. Pophale and restated that the PP Act’s special procedure for speedy eviction of unauthorised occupants applied to premises covered by Section 2(e), irrespective of whether tenancies were created before or after the Act’s commencement, subject to satisfaction of the two stated conditions. The Court recorded that the propositions in Suhas H. Pophale “stand overruled to that extent.”

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2638 of 2023 (lead matter in batch) Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Vita Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India; Senior Advocate Ashok Panigrahi (appearing for appellants/owners) For the Respondent(s): Senior Advocate Dr. Anindita Pujari; Senior Advocate Vishnu Mehra (appearing for respondent-occupants)

New Delhi; December 11, 2025.