Holding

Bare land let by a government undertaking does not fall within the definition of "government premises" under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, and therefore eviction cannot be effected under that Act.

Summary

The West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (the Corporation), a government undertaking, purchased a factory complex and subdivided it into plots, leasing three bare‑land plots to M/s Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (respondent). The lease was terminated for failure to commence construction, and the Corporation sought eviction under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. The High Court held that the Act did not apply because the leased premises were bare land and not "government premises" within the meaning of the Act, and allowed the corporation to evict under the 1962 Public Land Eviction Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that while the Corporation qualifies as a government undertaking under s.2(b), the leased bare land does not satisfy the definition of "government premises" under s.2(a) read with s.2(c); consequently, eviction under the 1976 Act was without jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the appeal, directing the corporation to pursue eviction under the 1962 Act.

Issues considered

The Corporation's status as a "government undertaking" under s.2(b) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976.
Whether the leased bare‑land plots constitute "government premises" within the meaning of s.2(a) read with s.2(c) of the same Act.
The jurisdiction of the Act to evict a tenant of bare land and the appropriate statutory remedy.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956s. 617
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972
West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy and Regulation) Rules, 1976s. 3(1)
West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976s. 2(a), s. 2(b), s. 2(c), s. 3(2)
West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962

Subjects

government undertakinggovernment premisesbare landevictionlease terminationstatutory interpretationWest Bengal Government Premises Actpublic land eviction

Judgment

[2020] 5 S.C.R. 209 209

WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES A
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
v.
M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2201 of 2020) B
MARCH 18, 2020
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act,
1976 – ss.2(a),(b), (c) and 3(2) – Appellant-Corporation purchased
C
immovable properties including a factory with land belonging to
a company – For purpose of setting up a small-scale industrial
zone, the Corporation constructed an administrative block, after
demolishing the existing structure, divided the area into small plots
– Respondent no.1 was allotted three plots of land – Prescribed
authority terminated the lease deed in accordance with s.3(2) of D
1976 Act r/w r.3(1), 1976 Rules for violation of lease deed, i.e.
for not taking steps for construction of the factory building – Order
upheld by Appellate Authority – High Court held that the 1976 Act
did not apply to the premises in question as Corporation is not a
government undertaking and the premises is not a government
E
premises – Held: Appellant is a “Government undertaking” as
defined in s.2(b) – Bare land has not been independently included
in the definition of “premises” – Thus, if bare land is let out by
the government and/or government undertaking to its tenant, the
incidence of such tenancy cannot be governed by the provisions
of 1976 Act and as such a tenant cannot be evicted by taking aid F
of the provisions of the Act – Plots leased to respondent no.1 did
not contain any structures – When eviction proceedings were
initiated, admittedly, the land in question did not contain any
structures – Material date is the date of initiation of eviction
proceedings – Eviction proceeding was in respect of these plots
G
of land and not the entire property purchased by the Corporation
– Premises in question does not come within the definition of s.2(a)
– Eviction proceedings initiated by the appellant against
respondent no.1 under the 1976 Act was without jurisdiction –
Appellants at liberty to seek eviction of respondent nos. 1 & 2 from
the land in question under 1962 Act – West Bengal Government H
209
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.

A Premises (Tenancy and Regulation) Rules, 1976 – r.3(1) – Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 – Companies Act,1956 – s.617 – West Bengal
Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 –
Interpretation of Statutes.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B Held: 1.1 The appellant-company is a “Government
undertaking” as defined in Section 2(b) of the West Bengal
Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. The term
“Government premises” is defined in Section 2(a) as any
premises which is owned by the State Government or by a
C Government undertaking but does not include the official
residence of any person authorized to occupy the premises in
consideration of the office which he holds under the State
Government or a Government undertaking for the time being.
The expression “premises” is defined in Section 2(c) of the Act.
Therefore, a premises can be regarded as “Government
D premises” only when it satisfies the definition of “Government
premises” under Section 2(a) of the Act read conjointly with the
definition of “premises” under Section 2(c) of the Act.
Government premises defined in Section 2(a) cannot be read in
isolation of the definition of “premises” under Section 2(c) of
E the Act. If the definition of “Government premises” appearing
in Section 2(a) of the Act is read conjointly with the definition of
“premises” appearing in Section 2(c) of the said Act, it not only
includes a building or a part of it or a hut or a part of it but also
includes a seat in a room, let separately, and also includes the
gardens, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant thereto
F together with the furniture, all fittings and fixtures provided for
the use of the tenant in such building, hut or a seat in a room
let separately. Thus, when a seat in a room of a Government
premises is let out to a tenant, certainly it will be a Government
premises. Again, if a seat in a room is let out together with the
G gardens; grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to a seat
in a room, such tenancy will be of a “Government premises”.
The expression “includes” is used in two places of the definition
of “premises” in Section 2(c) and the expression “includes”
which was used for the second time in the said definition without
any doubt was included to expand the ambit of “Government
H premises” so as to attract the provisions of the said Act. The
WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD. 211
v. M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.

expression “appurtenant to it” carries special significance. The A
definition of “premises” cannot be read bereft of the expression
“appurtenant to it”. The expression “appurtenant” in the
context means ‘relating to’, ‘usually enjoyed’, ‘occupied with’
or ‘adjoining’. Therefore, if a garden, ground, or an out-house
is let out along with building or hut or a seat in a room, such a
B
garden, ground or an out-house becomes part of the “premises”.
However, bare land has not been independently included in the
definition of “premises”. Therefore, if bare land is let out by the
government and/or the government undertaking to its tenant,
the incidence of such tenancy cannot be governed by the
provisions of the Act and as such a tenant cannot be evicted by C
taking aid of the provisions of the Act. [Paras 22-26] [218-A-H;
219-A-F]
1.2 When the eviction proceedings were initiated,
admittedly, the land in question did not contain any structures.
If the bare land is let out by the government undertaking and it D
continues to be a bare land as on the date of initiation of eviction
proceedings, the incidence of such tenancy cannot be governed
by the provisions of the Act and such a tenant cannot be evicted
by taking aid of the provisions of the Act. The material date is
the date of initiation of the eviction proceedings. The subject
matter of this appeal continues to be a bare land as on the date E
of initiation of the proceedings. The plots leased did not contain
any structures. The eviction proceedings was in respect of these
plots of land and not the entire property purchased by the
Corporation from Bengal Potteries Limited. The lease was in
respect of three plots of land which did not contain any building
and these plots of land do not satisfy the requirements of F
definition of “Government premises” within the meaning of
Section 2(a) read with Section 2(c) of the Act. The eviction
proceedings initiated by the Corporation against respondent No.1
under the Act was without jurisdiction. The appellant-
Corporation is a government undertaking within the meaning of G
Section 2(b) of the Act. The premises in question does not come
within the definition of Section 2(a) of the Act. The appellants
are reserved liberty to seek eviction of respondent Nos.1 and
2 from the land in question under West Bengal Public Land
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962. [Paras 29, 31-
34] [220-C-H; 221-A-E] H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2201
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.2014 of the Calcutta
High Court in A.P.O.T. No. 175 of 2014.
Bhaskar P. Gupta, Debal Banerjee, Sr. Advs., Avijit
B Bhattacharjee, Kunal Chatterjee, Ms. Upma Shrivastava, Abhay Kant
Mishra, Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, R. N. Ghose, Santanu Ghosh,
S. K. Verma, Sujoy Mondal and Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2014 in
G.A. 1172/2014, A.P.O.T. No.175/2014 with Writ Petition No. 36 of
D 2014, whereby the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has
allowed the Writ Petition and has quashed the order of eviction passed
by appellant No.5 against respondent No.1.
3. Appellant No.1 herein, namely, the West Bengal Small
Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘the Corporation’)
is a government of West Bengal undertaking engaged in developing,
E
assisting and encouraging growth of small-scale industries within the
State of West Bengal. It is a government company as defined under
Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The entire shareholding of
the Corporation is held by the State Government and/or its nominees.
The Directors appointed by the Corporation are the nominees of the
F State Government. The other appellants are the functionaries of the
first appellant-Corporation.
4. Registered small-scale industries apply to the Corporation for
allotment of industrial plots which are allotted at concessional rates to
assist the small-scale industries to set up factories and to operate
G thereon. The Corporation acts as an arm of the State Government in
providing industrial plots to small-scale industries. Whenever an allottee
remains a non-starter or its production closes down, after giving
reasonable opportunity to re-start/re-open, the plots of land and in some
cases the structures, are resumed by the Corporation. The resumed
plots/structures thereafter are re-allotted to other small-scale industries
H which are in the waitlist.
WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD. 213
v. M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

5. Bengal Potteries Limited, a company registered under the A
Companies Act, owned land with factory standing thereon situated at
Tangra in the city of Calcutta. The company went into liquidation and
all its immovable properties, including the factory with land were put
up for auction by the Calcutta High Court on “as is where is basis”.
The Corporation participated in the auction and its bid was accepted
B
by the company court. The Corporation became the owner of all the
buildings and structures along with all lands appurtenant thereto and all
assets therein.
6. After purchase of the said property, the Corporation decided
to set up a small-scale industrial zone according to the site plan which
was sanctioned by the concerned authorities. C

7. Thereafter, the Corporation, after demolition of the existing
structure, wherever necessary, constructed an administrative block, set
up adequate infrastructure, divided the area into small plots and invited
applications from small-scale industrial units for leasing out of such plots
and for construction of small-scale industrial units. D

8. On an application by respondent No.1, the Corporation
executed a first lease deed dated 14.12.2007 in favour of the said
respondent in respect of plot Nos. 7 and 15 being part of Tangra
Industrial Estate, Phase-II for setting up of a small-scale industry on
the terms and conditions mentioned therein. On 17.01.2008, the E
possession of these two plots was handed over to respondent No.1.
Another lease deed dated 04.03.2009, in respect of plot No.8 was
executed in the same industrial area in favour of respondent No.1.
Mutation process of the said three plots was completed on 26.09.2012
by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. F
9. On 10.10.2012, the Corporation issued a notice calling upon
respondent No.1 to show-cause as to why the tenancy should not be
terminated for violation of the terms of the lease. This notice was
issued invoking clause 3 of the lease deed. Respondent No.1 submitted
a reply dated 06.11.2012 to the show-cause notice. After hearing, G
respondent No.1 was informed by a letter dated 12.12.2015 that three
months’ time had been extended to commence construction work at
the plots. Since nothing was done, the prescribed authority, by notice
dated 09.11.2013, terminated the lease deed in accordance with Section
3(2) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation)
Act, 1976, (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 3(1) of the West Bengal H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.

A Government Premises (Tenancy and Regulation) Rules, 1976 (for short
‘the Rules’). The ground of termination was violation of clauses 2(c)
and (g) of the lease deed, i.e. for not taking steps for construction of
the factory building. By the said notice, respondent No.1 was directed
to vacate the premises within 30 days.
B 10. Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Managing
Director of the Corporation, who is the designated Appellate Authority
against the order of the prescribed authority.
11. While the appeal was pending, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed
the writ petition in the High Court seeking, inter alia, setting aside of
C the termination notice dated 09.11.2013. The Appellate Authority by
order dated 16.01.2014, upheld the order of the prescribed authority.
By this order, respondent No.1 was asked to vacate the plots in question
by 15.02.2014.
12. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority,
D respondent No.1 filed a general application in the pending writ petition,
inter alia, seeking to set aside and/or quash the order of the Appellate
Authority dated 16.01.2014.
13. The learned Single Judge, considering the writ petition along
with general application, passed ad-interim order restraining the
E Corporation from taking any steps for eviction of the writ-petitioners
from the disputed plots of land until the disposal of the application. While
passing the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge recorded that
the issue involved in the writ petition relates to the applicability of the
provisions of the Act in respect of the lease executed by the Corporation
for plots of land without any structure thereon. It was therefore, held
F that there was, prima facie, case made out by the writ-petitioners and
the balance of convenience lay in granting interim protection.
14. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the
learned Single Judge, the Corporation and its functionaries preferred
an appeal before the Division Bench. In addition, they sought stay of
G the order of the learned Single Judge by filing a separate application.
15. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal, as well as the
writ petition by the impugned order holding that the Corporation is not
a government undertaking and further held that the premises is not a
government premises. Therefore, on both counts the Division Bench
H concluded that the Act did not apply to the premises in question.
WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD. 215
v. M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the writ petition was A
allowed.
16. Appearing for the appellants, Shri Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned
Senior Counsel submits that the High Court has committed grave error
in holding that the Corporation is not a Government undertaking. He
submits that the appellant-Corporation is a Government company B
registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Hence, it owes its status
as a body corporate to the Companies Act, 1956. The Memorandum
and Article of Association of the Corporation demonstrated that it is
fully under the administrative and financial control of the State
Government. It is further contended that the High Court was not right
in holding that the premises in question is not a Government premises C
within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act. The plot leased out to
respondent No.1 was a part of the larger premises which included office
building, etc. The entirety of the land, as well as the building must be
construed as one unit which clearly falls within the definition of
“Government premises”. D
17. On the other hand, Shri Debal Banerjee, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the
appellant-Corporation does not satisfy the definition of “Government
undertaking” in Section 2(b) of the Act. Secondly, it is contended that
the premises which is the subject matter of this appeal is not covered E
under the provisions of the Act. Bare land was leased out by the
Corporation to respondent No.1. The said plot of land did not contain
any structure. The expression “any premises” in Section 2(a) would
by itself be wide enough to cover even bare land but since the term
“premises” is defined in Section 2(c) of the Act, that definition would
have to be inserted into the expression “Government premises” in F
Section 2(a). Otherwise, there would be repugnancy between Sections
2(a) and 2(c), which is to be avoided. Therefore, he prays for dismissal
of the appeal.
18. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, let us
find out the object and purpose of the Act. Normally, the rights of the G
lessor and the lessee and the incidence of tenancy are governed by
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The provision relating to termination
of tenancy in case of breach of the conditions of the lease and recovery
of possession from the lessee under the Transfer of Property Act is
very time-consuming. Even, the execution of decree for possession is H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.

A a complicated and time-consuming process. In order to avoid all these
hurdles and to expedite the recovery of possession, the Legislature has
enacted the Act. The preamble of the Act makes it clear that it has
been enacted to provide for regulation of certain incidences of tenancy
in relation to government premises in West Bengal and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
B
19. Section 3 of the Act provides for termination of tenancy,
which is as under:
“3. Termination of tenancy.- (1) Every tenancy held by a
tenant in respect of a Government premises shall stand
C terminated upon the expiry of the period referred to in a notice
to quit served upon such tenant in the prescribed manner.
(2) A tenancy in respect of a Government premises shall stand
automatically terminated without any notice to quit where the
tenant has,-
D
(i) violated the terms of the lease, or
[(ia) subsequently built a house or acquired (by purchase, gift,
inheritance, lease, exchange or otherwise) a house or an
apartment, either in his own name or in the name of any member
E of his family, within a reasonable distance from such Government
premises.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section and section 3A,-
(a) “apartment” shall have the same meaning as in the West
F Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972;
(b) “family” shall include parents and other relations of the
tenant who ordinarily reside with him and are dependant
on him;
(c) “reasonable distance” shall mean any distance not
G exceeding twenty-five kilometers, or]
(ii) made default in payment of rent for three consecutive
months”.
Provisos to Section 3 and the other sub-sections are not relevant
H for the purpose of this case.
WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD. 217
v. M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

20. The definition of the expressions “Government Premises”, A
“Government undertaking” and “Premises” are relevant. They are as
under:
“2. Definitions.-
(a) “Government premises” means any premises which is
owned by the State Government or by a Government B
undertaking but does not include the official residence
of any person authorized to occupy and premises in
consideration of the office which he holds under the
State Government or a Government undertaking for the
time being; C
(b) “Government undertaking” means a body corporate
constituted by or under a Central or State Act which is
under the administrative control of the State Government
or in which the State Government has exclusive
proprietary interest; D
(c) “premises” means any building or hut and includes part
of a building or hut and a seat in a room, let separately,
and also includes,-
(i) the gardens, grounds and out-houses, if any,
appurtenant thereto, E
(ii) any furniture supplied or any fittings or fixtures
affixed for the use of the tenant in such building, hut
or seat in, as the case may be.”
21. In the present case, the premises in question are not owned
F
by the government. It is owned by the appellant-Corporation, which is
a government company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
Therefore, the first question for consideration is whether the Corporation
can be regarded as a “Government undertaking” so as to attract the
applicability of the provisions of the Act in respect of the premises held
by it. G
22. It is an admitted position that the Corporation is registered
under the Companies Act, 1956. The Corporation is under the
administrative control of the State Government and almost all the shares
of the Corporation, are held by the State Government, apart from a
few shares which are held by IAS officers in their official capacity. It H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.

A owes its status as a body corporate to the Companies Act enacted by
the Parliament. In our considered view, the appellant-company is a
“Government undertaking” as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act.
23. The second question for consideration is whether the premises
owned by the Corporation and let out to respondent No.1 are
B government premises within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act.
The term “Government premises” is defined in Section 2(a) as any
premises which is owned by the State Government or by a Government
undertaking but does not include the official residence of any person
authorized to occupy the premises in consideration of the office which
he holds under the State Government or a Government undertaking for
C the time being. It is clear from this definition that, it refers to any
premises owned by the Government or a Government undertaking
except those which are official residences of the persons authorized to
occupy the said premises in consideration of the office which the
government official holds under the State Government or under any
D Government undertaking for the time being.
24. The expression “premises” is defined in Section 2(c) of the
Act. Therefore, a premises can be regarded as “Government premises”
only when it satisfies the definition of “Government premises” under
Section 2(a) of the Act read conjointly with the definition of “premises”
E under Section 2(c) of the Act. Government premises defined in Section
2(a) cannot be read in isolation of the definition of “premises” under
Section 2(c) of the Act. In order to give complete meaning to the
expression “Government premises”, we should first implant the definition
of “premises” under Section 2(c) in the place of the “premises”
appearing in Section 2(a) and then consider as to whether a premises
F is a Government premises or not. It is an undisputable canon of
construction that when an expression is defined in the statute, unless
there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the expression
has to be construed as having the same meaning assigned to it in the
dictionary clause of the statute. Therefore, the definition “premises”
G under Section 2(c) has to be read into the definition of “Government
premises” under Section 2(a).
25. Thus, if we read the definition of “Government premises”
appearing in Section 2(a) of the said Act conjointly with the definition
of “premises” appearing in Section 2(c) of the said Act, it not only
H includes a building or a part of it or a hut or a part of it but also includes
WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD. 219
v. M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

a seat in a room, let separately, and also includes the gardens, grounds A
and out-houses, if any, appurtenant thereto together with the furniture,
all fittings and fixtures provided for the use of the tenant in such building,
hut or a seat in a room let separately. Thus, when a seat in a room of
a Government premises is let out to a tenant, certainly it will be a
Government premises. Again, if a seat in a room is let out together with
B
the gardens; grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to a seat in a
room, such tenancy will be of a “Government premises”.
26. The point for consideration before us is when neither a building
nor a part of the building nor a hut nor a part of the hut nor a seat in
a room is let out to a tenant but only bare land is let out to a tenant,
can such tenancy be regarded as relating to a “Government premises” C
to attract the provisions of the Act. The expression “includes” is used
in two places of the definition of “premises” in Section 2(c) and the
expression “includes” which was used for the second time in the said
definition without any doubt was included to expand the ambit of
“Government premises” so as to attract the provisions of the said Act. D
The expression “appurtenant to it” carries special significance. We
cannot read the definition of “premises” bereft of the expression
“appurtenant to it”. The expression “appurtenant” in the context means
‘relating to’, ‘usually enjoyed’, ‘occupied with’ or ‘adjoining’. Therefore,
if a garden, ground, or an out-house is let out along with building or hut
or a seat in a room, such a garden, ground or an out-house becomes E
part of the “premises”. However, bare land has not been independently
included in the definition of “premises”. Therefore, we have no hesitation
to hold that if bare land is let out by the government and/or the
government undertaking to its tenant, the incidence of such tenancy
cannot be governed by the provisions of the Act and as such a tenant
cannot be evicted by taking aid of the provisions of the Act. F

27. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the
Corporation had purchased immovable properties including a factory
with land belonging to the Bengal Potteries Ltd. The Corporation had
become the owner of all the building and structures along with the land
appurtenant thereto belonging to the said company. After purchase of G
the land, the Corporation decided to set up a small-scale industrial zone
according to the site plan. The Corporation constructed an administrative
block after demolition of the existing structure and wherever necessary,
it divided the area into small plots. Respondent No.1 was allotted three
plots of land, which did not contain any structure at the time of lease.
H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R.

A 28. The lease in respect of these three plots of land was
terminated for violation of clauses 2(c) and 2(g) of the lease deed. It
is alleged in the show-cause notice at Annexure P-3 dated 10.10.2012,
that respondent No.1 failed to take any steps for construction of the
factory building as per clause 2(c) of the lease deed since taking over
possession of the said plot. By letter dated 19.12.2012 (Annexure P-
B
5), three months’ further time was extended for starting construction
work on the plots in question. However, respondent No.1 failed to start
the construction of the factory building even during this extended period.
Consequently, the tenancy in respect of these plots of land was
terminated.
C 29. Thus, when the eviction proceedings were initiated, admittedly,
the land in question did not contain any structures. If the bare land is
let out by the government undertaking and it continues to be a bare
land as on the date of initiation of eviction proceedings, the incidence
of such tenancy cannot be governed by the provisions of the Act and
D such a tenant cannot be evicted by taking aid of the provisions of the
Act. The material date is the date of initiation of the eviction
proceedings. Had respondent No.1 put up the construction on the plots
of land leased to it, and if the eviction is sought under Section 3 of the
Act for violation of some other clauses of the lease deed or upon
satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) of
E Section 3, the proceedings would have been maintainable. As noted
above, the subject matter of this appeal continues to be a bare land as
on the date of initiation of the proceedings.
30. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has laid emphasis
on the fact that the plots leased to respondent No.1 were a part of the
F larger premises which included office building etc. and that the plots
leased cannot be treated separately since it is a part of larger plot of
land including building. The entirety of the land as well as building must
be construed as one unit which clearly falls within the definition of
“Government premises”. Hence, the eviction proceedings clearly fall
G within the ambit of the Act.
31. It is true that, after purchase of the property from Bengal
Potteries Limited, the old buildings were demolished, wherever it was
necessary, and the administrative block was constructed. Rest of the
area was divided into small plots of land. Three such plots were leased
H to respondent No.1. The plots leased did not contain any structures.
WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD. 221
v. M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

The eviction proceedings was in respect of these plots of land and not A
the entire property purchased by the Corporation from Bengal Potteries
Limited. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the learned senior
counsel for the Corporation that the entire land as well as building are
to be construed as one unit because the entire land with the building
has not been leased to respondent No.1. The lease was in respect of
B
three plots of land which did not contain any building and these plots
of land do not satisfy the requirements of definition of “Government
premises” within the meaning of Section 2(a) read with Section 2(c)
of the Act.
32. Therefore, we hold that the eviction proceedings initiated by
the Corporation against respondent No.1 under the Act was without C
jurisdiction.
33. The High Court, in the concluding paragraph of the impugned
judgment, has held that the Corporation has to seek eviction of
respondent No.1 from the premises in question under the provisions of
the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) D
Act, 1962. We are entirely in agreement with this view of the High
Court.
34. To conclude, while holding that the appellant-Corporation is
a government undertaking within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the
Act, we further hold that the premises in question does not come within E
the definition of Section 2(a) of the Act. Reserving liberty to the
appellants to seek eviction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the land in
question under West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1962, we dismiss this appeal. However, there will be
no order as to costs. F

Divya Pandey Appeal dismissed.

G

H