Cantonment Board and An Other Vs CHURCH of NORTH India [ALL SC 2011 MAY]

(2011) 6 SCALE 229 : JT 2011 (6) SC 49 : AIRAIR All India Reporter 2011 SC 2339

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIAArticle 124 of the Constitution of India Constitution of India > 124. Supreme Court (1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges. (2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years: Provided that-- (a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office (b) a Judge may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (4). (2A) The age of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be determined by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law provide. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of India and-- (a) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession; or (c) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. (4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity. (5) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehavior or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4): (6) Every person appointed to be a Judge of the Supreme Court shall, before he enters upon his office, make and subscribe before the President, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule. (7) No person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India.)

(Before : P. Sathasivam and H. L. Gokhale, JJ.)

Civil AppealCivil Appeal Vasant Ganesh Damle vs. Shrikant Trimbak Datar (AIR 2002 SC 1237) in the following words: "The appeal is considered to be an extension of the suit because U/S. 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate Court has the same powers as are conferred by the Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. Such a power can be exercised by the appellate Court "as nearly as may be" exercised by the trial Court under the Code. If the powers conferred upon the trial Court are under a specified statute and not under the Code, it has to be ascertained as to whether such a power was intended to be exercised by the appellate Court as well. Such a position can be ascertained by having a reference to the specified law by keeping in mind the legislative intention of conferment of power on the appellate Court either expressly or by necessary implication." No. 1957 of 2003 : Decided On: 13-05-2011

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971—Section 4—Public Premises Act—Section 9—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Sections 107 and 106(1).

JUDGMENTJudgment The statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order - CPC 2(9). It contains a concise statement of the case, points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision - Order 20 Rule 4(2).  Section 354 of CrPC requires that every judgment shall contain points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Indian Supreme Court Decisions > Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts (Art 141 Indian Constitution) Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Art 144) Supreme Court Network On Judiciary – Portal > Denning: “Judges do not speak, as do actors, to please. They do not speak, as do advocates, to persuade. They do not speak, as do historians, to recount the past. They speak to give Judgment. And in their judgments, you will find passages, which are worthy to rank with the greatest literature….” Law Points on Judgment Writing > The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by judges (State Bank of India and Another Vs Ajay Kumar Sood SC 2022)

H.L. Gokhale, J—This appeal by Special Leave seeks to challenge the order passed by a Division Bench of High CourtHigh Court High Court Judges in England and Wales handle complex and tough cases, sitting in London and traveling to court centers around the country. They preside over serious criminal and important civil cases, and support the Lord and Lady Justices in hearing appeals. High Court Judges are commonly referred to as ‘Mr/Mrs/Ms Justice surname’ and are given the prefix ‘The Honourable’. They are assigned to the King’s Bench Division, the Family Division, or the Chancery Division. The King’s Bench Division focuses on civil wrongs and judicial review, the Family Division deals with family law, and the Chancery Division handles various cases including company law and probate. Judges are appointed through a rigorous process overseen by the Judicial Appointments Commission. of Rajasthan in D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 753 of 1993 dated 17.5.2002 whereby the appeal filed by the Appellants herein against the order passed by a Single Judge of that High Court dated 13.8.1993 in Writ PetitionPetition αναφορά > παρακαλώ (Prayer) No. 5281 of 1991 filed by the first Respondent came to be dismissed. The Single Judge had allowed Respondent’s writ petition.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

The Respondent herein is running a Mission Hospital at Nasirabad in the State of Rajasthan. The Hospital building initially belonged to the East India CompanyEast India Company British East India Company (1600-1874), the French East India Company, the Dutch East India Company (Netherlands) and the Danish East India Company (Denmark).. Later on, it belonged to the GovernmentGovernment HM Govt consists of the Prime Minister, their Cabinet, and junior ministers, supported by the teams of non-political civil servants that work in government departments. The American Federal Government consists of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. of India and it is under the management of the Nasirabad Cantonment which is a cantonment governed under the Cantonment Act, 1924. The case of the Appellants is that the Respondent was given the concerned premises under a leaseLeasehold The leaseholder has no right or interest in the land, he pays rent to the landlord for using the flat or house. A lease is an agreement between the freeholder and the tenant. Commonhold is a form of ownership (or tenure) for multi-occupancy developments (flats of a building). Each unit-holder owns the freehold of their flat, and a commonhold or residents’ association owns and manages the common parts of the property. deed dated 1.4.1982 which expired on 31.3.1984. The rent for the premises was fixed at ` 75 per month. The lease deed provided in Clause 2 (iii) that the lessee shall vacate the premises before the expiry of the lease as and when required by the Cantonment Board provided seven days’ notice to this effect is given in writing.

3. The case of the Appellants is that the premises were not being utilized fully and that the Respondent had taken some other premises also. The Appellants needed the premises. After the expiry of the lease on 31.3.1984, the Estate Officer of the Cantonment Board stopped accepting the rent.

4. The Appellants served a notice of seven days as required under Section 4 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Public Premises Act’) on 14.3.1984 and again on 27.3.1984. The Respondent filed a Civil Suit No. 10/1985 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge No. 1 at Ajmer to challenge the notice. The Respondent filed an application to deposit the rent in Civil Court but that was not entertained. The Civil Suit came to be dismissed on 31.7.1987 and the Respondent applied for six months timeTime χρόνος. Judicial: Where any expression of it occurs in any Rules, or any judgment, order or direction, and whenever the doing or not doing of anything at a certain time of the day or night or during a certain part of the day or night has an effect in law, that time is, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, held to be standard time as used in a particular country or state. (In Physics, time and Space never exist actually-“quantum entanglement”) यमः , पुं, (यमयति नियमयति जीवानां फलाफलमिति । यम् + अच् । विश्वे च कलयत्येव यः सर्व्वायुश्च सन्ततम् । अतीव दुर्निवार्य्यञ्च तं कालं प्रणमाम्यहम् ॥यमैश्च नियमैश्चैव यः करोत्यात्मसंयमम् । स चादृष्ट्वा तु मां याति परं ब्रह्म सनातनम् ॥ to vacate which was accepted by the Appellant. The order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Ajmer in that matterMatter Normal matter is made of molecules, which are themselves made of atoms. Inside the atoms, electrons are spinning around the nucleus. The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons. Inside the protons and neutrons, exist indivisible quarks, like the electrons. All matter around us is made of elementary particles. ( building blocks of matter > quarks and leptons). All stable matter in the universe is made from particles that belong to the first-generation. Fundamental forces result from the exchange of force-carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called “bosons”. The strong force is carried by the “gluon”, electromagnetic force is carried by the “photon.” on 31.7.1987 reads as follows:

31.07.1987: Present, Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the applicant seeks six months time to vacant the disputed property, the learned Counsel for the no applicant is agreeable for this request. Hence, it is directed that non-applicant will not dispossess the applicant from the disputed premises, and he will be at liberty to initiate proceedings for the same thereafter. This application is disposed of with this order, and the file to be consigned to record along with this decision.

5. The Respondent, however, did not vacate the premises as assured, and therefore, the Appellant filed a fresh application under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer considered the objections filed by the Respondent and then passed an order of eviction under Section 5 of that Act on 26.6.1991. The order passed by the Estate Officer in para 7 thereof, notes that the Respondent did raise the question of jurisdictionJurisdiction Authority by which courts receive and decide cases. Limited Jurisdiction: the authority over only particular types of cases, or cases under a prescribed amount in controversy, or seeking only certain types of relief, the District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of the first court to hear a case. of the Estate Officer but only on the ground that the jurisdiction to evict was with the Civil Court and the action should be taken under the Transfer of Property Rules. The Estate Officer rejected that submission holding that the Public Premises Act was a special Act and it will override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The appeal against the order of the Estate Officer filed under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act was dismissed by the DistrictDistrict India has 800 districts under 29 federal states and 8 union territories. Adilabad Agar-Malwa Agra Ahilyanagar Ahmedabad Aizawl Ajmer Akola Alappuzha Aligarh Alipurduar Alirajpur Alluri Sitharama Raju Almora Alwar Ambala Ambedkar Nagar Amethi Amravati Amreli Amritsar Amroha Anakapalli Anand Ananthapuramu Anantnag Anjaw Annamayya Anugul Anuppur Araria Ariyalur Arvalli Arwal Ashoknagar Auraiya Aurangabad Ayodhya Azamgarh Bagalkote Bageshwar Baghpat Bahraich Bajali Baksa Balaghat Balangir Baleshwar Ballari Ballia Balod Balodabazar-Bhatapara Balotra Balrampur Balrampur-Ramanujganj Banas Kantha Banda Bandipora Banka Bankura Banswara Bapatla Bara Banki Baramulla Baran Bareilly Bargarh Barmer Barnala Barpeta Barwani Bastar Basti Bathinda Beawar Beed Begusarai Belagavi Bemetara Bengaluru Rural Bengaluru Urban Betul Bhadohi Bhadradri Kothagudem Bhadrak Bhagalpur Bhandara Bharatpur Bharuch Bhavnagar Bhilwara Bhind Bhiwani Bhojpur Bhopal Bichom Bidar Bijapur Bijnor Bikaner Bilaspur Bilaspur Birbhum Bishnupur Biswanath Bokaro Bongaigaon Botad Boudh Budaun Budgam Bulandshahr Buldhana Bundi Burhanpur Buxar Cachar Central Chamarajanagar Chamba Chamoli Champawat Champhai Chandauli Chandel Chandigarh Chandrapur Changlang Charaideo Charkhi Dadri Chatra Chengalpattu Chennai Chhatarpur Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Chhindwara Chhotaudepur Chikkaballapura Chikkamagaluru Chirang Chitradurga Chitrakoot Chittoor Chittorgarh Chumoukedima Churachandpur Churu Coimbatore Cooch Behar Cuddalore Cuttack Dadra And Nagar Haveli Dahod Dakshin Bastar Dantewada Dakshin Dinajpur Dakshina Kannada Dhenkanal Dholpur Dhubri Dhule Dibang Valley Dibrugarh Didwana-Kuchaman Dima Hasao Dimapur Dindigul Dindori Diu Doda Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema Dumka Dungarpur Durg East East Garo Hills East Godavari East Jaintia Hills East Kameng East Khasi Hills East Siang East Singhbum Eastern West Khasi Hills Eluru Ernakulam Erode Etah Etawah Faridabad Faridkot Farrukhabad Fatehabad Fatehgarh Sahib Fatehpur Fazilka Ferozepur Firozabad Gadag Gadchiroli Gajapati Ganderbal Gandhinagar Ganganagar Gangtok Ganjam Garhwa Gariyaband Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi Gautam Buddha Nagar Gaya Ghaziabad Ghazipur Gir Somnath Giridih Goalpara Godda Golaghat Gomati Gonda Gondia Gopalganj Gorakhpur Gumla Guna Guntur Gurdaspur Gurugram Gwalior Gyalshing Hailakandi Hamirpur Hamirpur Hanumakonda Hanumangarh Hapur Harda Hardoi Haridwar Hassan Hathras Haveri Hazaribagh Hingoli Hisar Hnahthial Hojai Hooghly Hoshiarpur Howrah Hyderabad Idukki Imphal East Imphal West Indore Jabalpur Jagatsinghapur Jagitial Jaipur Jaisalmer Jajapur Jalandhar Jalaun Jalgaon Jalna Jalore Jalpaiguri Jammu Jamnagar Jamtara Jamui Jangoan Janjgir-Champa Jashpur Jaunpur Jayashankar Bhupalapally Jehanabad Jhabua Jhajjar Jhalawar Jhansi Jhargram Jharsuguda Jhunjhunu Jind Jiribam Jodhpur Jogulamba Gadwal Jorhat Junagadh Kabeerdham Kachchh Kaimur (Bhabua) Kaithal Kakching Kakinada Kalaburagi Kalahandi Kalimpong Kallakurichi Kamareddy Kamjong Kamle Kamrup Kamrup Metro Kancheepuram Kandhamal Kangpokpi Kangra Kannauj Kanniyakumari Kannur Kanpur Dehat Kanpur Nagar Kapurthala Karaikal Karauli Karbi Anglong Kargil Karimganj Karimnagar Karnal Karur Kasaragod Kasganj Kathua Daman Damoh Dangs Darbhanga Darjeeling Darrang Datia Dausa Davanagere Deeg Dehradun Deogarh Deoghar Deoria Devbhumi Dwarka Dewas Dhalai Dhamtari Dhanbad Dhar Dharashiv Dharmapuri Dharwad Dhemaji Katihar Katni Kaushambi Kendrapara Kendujhar Keyi Panyor Khagaria Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Khairthal-Tijara Khammam Khandwa (East Nimar) Khargone (West Nimar) Khawzawl Kheda Kheri Khordha Khowai Khunti Kinnaur Kiphire Kishanganj Kishtwar Kodagu Koderma Kohima Kokrajhar Kolar Kolasib Kolhapur Kolkata Kollam Kondagaon Koppal Koraput Korba Korea Kota Kotputli-Behror Kottayam Kozhikode Kra Daadi Krishna Krishnagiri Kulgam Kullu Kumuram Bheem Asifabad Kupwara Kurnool Kurukshetra Kurung Kumey Kushinagar Lahaul And Spiti Lakhimpur Lakhisarai Lakshadweep District Lalitpur Latehar Latur Lawngtlai Leh Ladakh Leparada Lohardaga Lohit Longding Longleng Lower Dibang Valley Lower Siang Lower Subansiri Lucknow Ludhiana Lunglei MAUGANJ Madhepura Madhubani Madurai Mahabubabad Mahabubnagar Mahasamund Mahendragarh Mahesana Mahisagar Mahoba Mahrajganj Maihar Mainpuri Majuli Malappuram Malda Malerkotla Malkangiri Mamit Mancherial Mandi Mandla Mandsaur Mandya Munger Murshidabad Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarpur Mysuru Nabarangpur Nadia Nagaon Nagapattinam Nagarkurnool Nagaur Nagpur Nainital Nalanda Nalbari Nalgonda Namakkal Namchi Namsai Nanded Nandurbar Nandyal Narayanpet Narayanpur Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur(M C B) Mangan Mansa Marigaon Mathura Mau Mayiladuthurai Mayurbhanj Medak Medchal Malkajgiri Meerut Meluri Mirzapur Moga Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Mokokchung Mon Moradabad Morbi Morena Mulugu Mumbai Mumbai Suburban Mungeli Narmada Narmadapuram Narsimhapur Nashik Navsari Nawada Nayagarh Neemuch New Delhi Nicobars Nirmal Niuland Niwari Nizamabad Noklak Noney North North 24 Parganas North And Middle Andaman North East North Garo Hills North Goa North Tripura North West Ntr Nuapada Nuh Pakke Kessang Pakur Pakyong Palakkad Palamu Palghar Pali Palnadu Palwal Panch Mahals Panchkula Pandhurna Panipat Panna Papum Pare Parbhani Parvathipuram Manyam Paschim Bardhaman Paschim Medinipur Pashchim Champaran Patan Pathanamthitta Pathankot Patiala Patna Pauri Garhwal Peddapalli Perambalur Peren Phalodi Phek Pherzawl Pilibhit Pithoragarh Poonch Porbandar Prakasam Pratapgarh Pratapgarh Prayagraj Puducherry Pudukkottai Pulwama Pune Purba Bardhaman Ranipet Ratlam Ratnagiri Rayagada Reasi Rewa Rewari Ri Bhoi Rohtak Rohtas Rudraprayag Rupnagar S.A.S Nagar Sabar Kantha Sagar Saharanpur Saharsa Sahebganj Saitual Sakti Salem Salumbar Samastipur Samba Purba Medinipur Purbi Champaran Puri Purnia Purulia Rae Bareli Raichur Raigad Raigarh Raipur Raisen Rajanna Sircilla Rajgarh Rajkot Rajnandgaon Rajouri Rajsamand Ramanagara Ramanathapuram Ramban Ramgarh Rampur Ranchi Ranga Reddy Sambalpur Sambhal Sangareddy Sangli Sangrur Sant Kabir Nagar Saraikela Kharsawan Saran Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Satara Satna Sawai Madhopur Sehore Senapati Seoni Sepahijala Serchhip Shahdara Shahdol Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar Shahjahanpur Shajapur Shamator Shamli Sheikhpura Sheohar Sheopur Shi Yomi Shimla Shivamogga Shivpuri Shopian Shrawasti Siaha Siang Siddharthnagar Siddipet Sidhi Sikar Simdega Sindhudurg Singrauli Sirmaur Sirohi Sirsa Sitamarhi Sitapur Sivaganga Sivasagar Siwan Solan Solapur Sonbhadra Sonepur Sonipat Sonitpur Soreng South South 24 Parganas South Andamans South East South Garo Hills South Goa South Salmara Mancachar South Tripura South West South West Garo Hills South West Khasi Hills Sri Muktsar Sahib Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore Sri Sathya Sai Srikakulam Srinagar Sukma Sultanpur Sundargarh Supaul Surajpur Surat Surendranagar Surguja Suryapet Tamenglong Tamulpur Tapi Tarn Taran Tawang Tehri Garhwal Tengnoupal Tenkasi Thane Thanjavur The Nilgiris Theni Thiruvallur Thiruvananthapuram Thiruvarur Thoothukkudi Thoubal Thrissur Tikamgarh Tinsukia Tirap Tiruchirappalli Tirunelveli Tirupathur Tirupati Tiruppur Tiruvannamalai Tonk Tseminyu Tuensang Tumakuru Udaipur Udalguri Udham Singh Nagar Udhampur Udupi Ujjain Ukhrul Warangal Wardha Washim Wayanad West West Garo Hills West Godavari West Jaintia Hills West Kameng West Karbi Anglong West Khasi Hills West Siang West Singhbhum West Tripura Wokha Y.S.R. Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Yadgir Yamunanagar Yavatmal Zunheboto Umaria Una Unakoti Unnao Upper Siang Upper Subansiri Uttar Bastar Kanker Uttar Dinajpur Uttara Kannada Uttarkashi Vadodara Vaishali Valsad Varanasi Vellore Vidisha Vijayanagara Vijayapura Vikarabad Viluppuram Virudhunagar Visakhapatnam Vizianagaram Wanaparthy Judge and hence, the Respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 5281 of 1991 before a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court.

6. The Learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition took the view that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applied to the Cantonments Boards. The particular lease deed was not a registered lease deed as was necessary as per Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, since the period of lease was more than one year, and it was a lease for an immovable property. The Learned Judge held the particular lease to be a lease from month to month, and therefore, there must be a 15 days’ notice to terminate it as required by Section 106(1) of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. He held that the 7 days’ notice of termination will not be a valid one. He further held that since such termination had not taken place, the Respondent could not be held to be an unauthorized occupant. The Learned Judge also took the view that the order dated 31.7.1987 could not be read as an undertaking to vacate after the expiry of six months. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent and set aside the order passed under the Public Premises Act. The Appellants herein preferred an Appeal numbered as 753 of 1993 to the Division Bench. The Division Bench also took the same view as the Learned Single Judge and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants herein. The Division Bench held that the premises may be taken to be public premises but the Respondent cannot be taken to be an unauthorised occupant since his right to occupy was not terminated by a 15 days’ notice.

7. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order the present appeal has been filed. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the premises belonged to Union of India and were being managed by the Appellant administratively under the Public Premises Act. Section 4 of that Act permitted a notice of seven days, which had been given in the instant case. Even the lease documentDocument It means any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter and includes electronic and digital records. (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) also provided for a termination of the lease by a notice of seven days, and in any case, the action was being taken after the expiry of the lease period. The lease had not been extended. That being so, the Respondent was in unauthorized occupation within the definition of ‘unauthorized occupation’ under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act. He relied upon a numberNumber Αριθμός of decisions to contend that the position of a lessee holding on under an unregistered deed which is compulsorily registrable is that of a mere tenant at will, and a mere demandDemand In economics, the amount of a good or service that consumers are willing to buy at a particular price. for possession is sufficient to determine the lease, and no notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary. We are not required to go into this submission for reasons which are stated herein after.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent tried to refute these submissions by maintaining the submissions which were canvassed before the Court below. The submissions of the Respondent are untenable on the face of it, in as much as the period for which the premises were let out was over and obviously the Respondent was in unauthorized occupation thereafter. The Appellants were therefore entitled to take recourse to lawLaw νόμος:  Positive command of sovereign or divine. One can be ruled either by a Statute, a Statue, or a Statement. Legislation is the rule-making process by a political or religious organisation. Physics governs natural law. Logical thinking is a sign of a healthy brain function. Dharma is eternal for Sanatanis. Judiciary > Show me the face, and I will show you the law. Some people know how to bend the law rather than break it. Law Practice. Read a scholarly article and take possession of the premises. The only question is whether they had taken the correct course of action as permissible in law.

9. Mr. Singla, learned Counsel for the Respondent however, lastly submitted that the Respondent was owner of the premises and secondly, the Public Premises Act did not apply to these premises also for the reason that the Cantonment Boards have come to be covered under the Public Premises Act only by Amendment Act of 1993 which came into force on 7.1.1994. That is how Clause (viii) ‘governing any Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonment Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)’ has come to be included in the definition of “public premises” under Section 2(e)(2)(viii) of the Public Premises Act. He therefore, submitted that at the time when the proceedings were initiated and the order was passed under the Public Premises Act, the Estate Officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed under this Act and therefore, for this reason alone the eviction proceedings will have to be held as bad in law for want of jurisdiction and the appeal will have to be dismissed. He submitted that this was an issue with respect to having jurisdiction to deal with the subject-matter and the submission can be raised at any stage of proceedings.

10. Mr. Venkataramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant pointed out in his rejoinder that neither of these two submissions were advanced any time in the past. In any case, as far as the ownership of the premises by the Respondent is concerned, no document has ever been produced in this behalf. With respect to the second submission he pointed out that the case of the Appellant was that the premises belonged to Union of India and the Appellants were entrusted with the management thereof. The Public Premises Act, therefore, applied to the concerned premises.

11. The submission of Mr. Venkataramani that the question of jurisdiction was not raised any time earlier is not fully correct in as much as, pointed out earlier, para 7 of the estate officer’s order records the objection to the jurisdiction of the estate officer raised by the Respondent though in a different manner. The counsel for the Respondent submitted that the issue which he had raised now in this Court disputing the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer was a question of law and the matter went to the root of jurisdiction of the authority to pass the eviction order. If the authority did not have the jurisdiction to proceed under the Public Premises Act, the eviction order could not be upheld. A point about the jurisdiction can be raised even in this Court even if it was not raised any time earlier.

12. We have considered the submission of both the counsel. As far the first submission of Mr. Singla viz. that the premises belong to the Respondent is concerned, the same has never been raised any time before. On the record of the present Civil Appeal, we have the objection filed by the Respondent before the Estate Officer, and a copy of the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent. Nowhere have they claimed that they own the premises. On the contrary, in paragraph 3 of their objections before the Estate Officer, they have stated that the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board is the Secretary and the Custodian of the property. In Paragraph 4 of Writ Petition No. 5281/1991, filed before the Single Judge, they have clearly stated that the hospital building initially belonged to the East India Company and later on had belonged to the Government of India. They are not disputing the factFact Something तथ्य (In-formation) that truly exists or happens or some-thing that has actual existence. Circumstances: a fact or event that makes a situation the way it is. Indian Evidence Act: It means and includes— (i) anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (ii) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. “facts in issue” means and includes any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows. that a lease-deed was executed between the parties on 1.4.1982 whereby they were in occupation of the Hospital building. In the second recital of the lease deed, it is clearly stated that the lessor is the owner of the premises, and the premises were being let out to the hospital run by the Respondent on the terms contained therein. The Respondent had nowhere claimed that they own the land or they constructed the building thereon. This being so, it is not possible to accept the first objection of Mr. Singla.

13. As far as, the second submission of Mr. Singla is concerned, it is submitted by him that the Cantonment Boards were covered under the Public Premises Act only with effect from 1.6.1994 by an amendment introducing Sub-section (viii) in Section 2(e)(2) of the Public Premises Act. He has, therefore, contended that the Estate Officer had no jurisdiction to pass eviction order on 26.6.1991 and hence, on this ground alone, the present appeal must be dismissed. As far as this submission of Mr. Singla is concerned, Mr. Venkaramani submitted that this objection ought to have been raised at the earliest opportunity so that Appellant could have met the same earlier. It is undoubtedly true that objection to the maintainability of a proceeding must be raised at the earliest but an objection that the authority did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings over the subject matter goes to the root of the proceeding. In a number of judgments, this Court has held that a defect, with respect to the lack of inherent jurisdiction is basic and fundamental and validity of such an order can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or in collateral proceedings (for reference see a judgment of a bench of three judges of this Court in Balwant N. Viswamitra and Ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through L.Rs. reported in, (2004) 8 SCC 706 .

14. However, such an eventuality does not arise in this case for the reason that the case of the Appellant has been that the hospital premises of the Respondent belong to the Union of India and are only under the management of the Appellant, and therefore, are the “public premises”, under Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act 1971. Thus, in the first paragraph containing the reasons of his order dated 26.6.1991, the Estate Officer states as follows:

1. That the CNI Mission Hospital, Nasirabad which is situated on and land thereon, belongs to the Union of India and lies under the management of Cantt. Board, Nasirabad is a public premises as defined under 2(e) of the P.P. Act, 1971.

It is this order of eviction which was challenged in appeal to the District Court and thereafter in writ petition.

15. Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act defines “public premises.” This section is split into two Sub-sections. Sub-section (1) covers there under any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government. Sub-section (2) deals with premises belonging to or taken on lease or on behalf of various entities such as Government Companies, Universities, Major Ports etc. which are mentioned in that Sub-section, and Cantonment Boards have come to be covered under Sub-section (viii) by amendment with effect from 1.6.1994. The case of the Respondent has been that the premises belong to Union of India, and, therefore, are public premises. The Estate Officer did have the jurisdiction over such premises. It is another matter that the premises of Cantonment Boards have also come under the definition of public premises since 1.6.1994. It cannot mean that the premises of Union of India which were always under the Public Premises Act, but under the Management of a Cantonment Board, since prior to this amendment, would not be covered under the Public Premises Act. This has been the plea of the Appellants right from the beginning. Section 116A of the Cantonment Act 1924, gives the powerPower The amount of energy transferred or converted per unit of time. In the International System of Units, the unit of it is the watt, equal to one joule per second. The capacity of energy infrastructure is rated using watts, which indicate its potential to supply or consume energy in a given period of time. A Power-plant rated at 100 MW has the potential to produce 100 MWh if it operates for one hour. to the Cantonment Board to manage any property entrusted to it by the Central Government. It is under this Section that the present premises are under the management of the Appellant Board. Section 116A reads as follows:

Section 116A. Power to manage property.- A (Board) may, subject to any conditions imposed by the Central Government, manage any property entrusted to its management by the Central Government on such terms as to the sharing of rents and profits accruing from such property as may be determined by rule made under Section 280.

16. The Government has the power to make rules concerning the management of these properties. This power is contained in Section 116 of the Act. Mr. Venkaramani has drawn our attention to the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 under which the properties under their management are classified into three categories ‘A”, ‘B’ & ‘C’. The present premises fall in category ‘C’. He has also shown us the receipt issued by the Defence Estate Officer to the Appellant for the payment of rent of the land on which the hospital building is situated. We have also been shown the relevant notification issued by the Central Government authorizing the concerned Officer as the Estate Officer for the premises under the control of the Ministry of Defence.

17. This being the position, there is no substance in the objection raised by and on behalf of the Respondent. The Estate Officer did have jurisdiction to take action against the Respondent under the Public Premises Act. The period of authorization of the Respondent to occupy the premises was over on 31.3.1984. Therefore, the Respondent was in an unauthorized occupation thereafter under Section 2(g) of the Act. Notice as required, under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act was given. The Respondent had no acceptable defence. The premises were no longer being used properly. That being so, the order of eviction was fully justified as also the order passed by the District Judge dismissing the appeal.

18. The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, therefore, clearly erred in holding that a notice of 15 days ought to have been given in the present case to terminate the authority of the Respondent on the concerned premises. The provisions of Sections 106 and 107 of Transfer of Property Act could not be applied to the present case on that count since the premises were covered under a special act which will prevail as against a general enactment. The Division Bench also having accepted that the Respondent was in an unauthorized occupation, erred in insisting that a 15 days’ notice was necessary.

19. In the circumstances, this Civil Appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 17.5.2002 in Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 753/1993 as well as the order dated 13.8.1991 passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5281/1991 are set aside. Appeal No. 753/1993 filed before the Division Bench will stand allowed and Writ Petition No. 5281/1991 filed by the Respondent before the Single Judge will stand dismissed. The order passed by the Estate Officer dated 26.6.1991 as upheld by the District Judge, Ajmer is hereby confirmed.

20. The appeal is allowed accordingly, though, without any order as to costsCosts Subject to any written law, costs are at the discretion of the Court, and the Court has the power to determine all issues relating to the costs of or incidental to all proceedings, including by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid, at any stage of the proceedings or after the conclusion of the proceedings. Generally “Costs” includes charges, disbursements, expenses, fees, and remuneration. Costs in any matter are payable from the date of the order of the Court unless the parties otherwise agree. The costs of a third-party funding contract are not recoverable as part of the costs of, or costs..