Public Premises Act Overrides Maharashtra Rent Control Act Even For Tenancies Predating It: Bombay High Court Rejects Tenancy Suit
Relying on Supreme Court's decision in LIC v. Vita, the Bench noted that a person in unauthorised occupation of public premises cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act.
The Bombay High Court has held that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 overrides the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration of tenancy, even in respect of premises let out prior to the enactment of the 1971 Act and earlier covered under rent control protection.
The Court relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Vita 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2772, where a larger Bench reiterated the position in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Anr. v. Panjab National Bank And Ors. 1990 (4) SCC 406 and overruled Dr. Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance Co. and its Estate Officer AIR 2014 SC 1509 holding that a person in unauthorised occupation of public premises cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act.
Justice Arun R. Pedneker observed, “The pleadings in plaint would itself indicate that the subject premises are 'Public Premises' and falls within the definition of Section 2(e) (2)(iii). In view of the categorical declaration of law by the Supreme Court in the case of Vita (supra), the suit filed for the relief claimed under Rent Control Act, is not maintainable, in view of bar under Section 15 of the Public Premises Act, 1971. The bar is applicable to the premises let out even prior to enactment of Act of 1971 and earlier covered under the protection of Rent Control Act…”.
Advocate V. Y. Sanglikar appeared for the applicant and Advocate E. A. Sasi appeared for the respondent.
Th Bench was hearing a Civil Revision Application filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, which challenged an order of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai declining to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPc.
The Respondent had filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was the tenant of a room forming part of premises admittedly owned by the Corporation, which it contended were public premises falling within the sweep of the 1971 Act.
Rejecting the Respondent's plea that his tenancy predated the 1971 Act and that rights accrued under rent control could not be taken away, the Court noted that no prima facie evidence had been produced to show that the Respondent or his predecessor was inducted as a tenant before the Act came into force.
The Court further held that even assuming such prior tenancy, the suit would still be hit by Section 15, Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
Allowing the Civil Revision Application, the Court rejected pending before the Small Causes Court. On the request of the Respondent's counsel, the Court directed that the order shall not be implemented for a period of six weeks.
Cause Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Abhishek Vasant Chavan (Civil Revision Application No. 24 of 2022)
Appearances:
Applicant: V. Y. Sanglikar, Payal Chheda, Advocates.
Respondent: E. A. Sasi, Bhagyashree Mangle, Arnav Rane, Tejas Shinde, Bijoy Chacko, Advocates.