ORDER Jha, J. -- 1. Learned Single Bench has referred this dispute before the larger Bench on account of difference of interpretation of provisions of section 2(e) of M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedkhali) Adhiniyam by the Division Bench judgments. ip the case of Hariom Verma and another v. State of M.P. and others [1992(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 184] and in the case of R.P. Shanna v. Competent.Authority MP No.474/92 decided on 23.6.1997 reported in 1992(2) MPWN 74 . 2. Short question involved in these cases is whether the premises belonging to local authority will fall within the meaning of "public premises" as defined under section 2(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam") and Adhiniyam is applicable to premises belonging to local autrurity. 3. In the case of Hariom Verma (supra), it is held that Adhiniyam is not applicable to property belonging to Municipality, whereas in another decision in the case of R.P. Sharma (supra), il is held that the definition under section 2(e) of the Adhiniyam encompasses properties of municipal council i.e. local authority, therefore, Adhiniyam is applicable to the properties of the municipal council and municial council can evic the unauthorised occupants under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. 4. Following question of law is referred for determination: "Whether a 'public premises' as defined under section 2(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 includes' a premises belonging to a local authority or not?" 5. Shri R.D. Jain, senior advocate appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Hariom Verma (supra) and submitted that the language of section 2(e) occurring in the Adhiniyam is plain and simple. Section 2(e)(i) and section 2(e)(ii) has been interpreted in this judgment. Counse1.for the petitioner submitted that it is held in this case that any premises belonging to any "local authority" will not encompass the property of local authority as clause (ii) speaks of statutory corporation of which the character is defined in the second part of clause (ii) whereby corporation which is "owned or controlled" by the State or a local authority and properties of local authorities are not included in the definition of public premises. The properties must be of corporation owned and controlled by local authority. Thus, any corporation not being a company should be owned or controlled by State Government or local authority. The properties must be of corporation owned and controlled by local authority. Thus, any corporation not being a company should be owned or controlled by State Government or local authority. He submitted that the language occurring in section 2(e) is clear and specific and submitted that subsequent Division Bench judgment in the case of R.P. Sharma (supra), has not taken note of earlier judgment, as such previous judgment will prevail over the subsequent judgment and he placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of labalpur Bus Operators Association v. State of M.P. [ 2003(1) JLJ 105 = 2003(1) MPLJ 513 ]. In this case it is held that in the case of conflict of decisions in the judgments of the Supreme Court comprising equal number of Judges, decision of earlier Bench is binding. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the definition of public premises legislature has excluded the properties of local authority and the intention of legislature will prevail and legislative intent is clear whereby provisions of the Adhiniyam is not applicable to properties of municipalities. He reerred to the decision in the case of Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others [ AIR 1978 SC 1807 ] and submitted that the I object of the legislation is essential to interpret the provisions. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jathanand v. Nagar Palika, Mandsaur [ 1980 JLJ 494 ]. Learned Single Bench in this case has considered the scope of unamended provisions of section 2(e) of the Adhiniyam and in section 2( e) as it stood at the relevant time it was provided that the public premises will include any corporation which is not company under section 3 of the Companies Act and local authority. Therefore, the law laid down in the case of lethanand is not applicable to the present case. Reference has been made to the observation in the case of Smt. lamuna Bai and others v. Chhote Singh and others [ 2004(1) JLJ 227 = 2004(2) MPHT 325 (FB)]. Therefore, the law laid down in the case of lethanand is not applicable to the present case. Reference has been made to the observation in the case of Smt. lamuna Bai and others v. Chhote Singh and others [ 2004(1) JLJ 227 = 2004(2) MPHT 325 (FB)]. Wherein this Court has referred to the apex Court judgment in the case of G.Govindan v. New India Assurance CoLtd. and others [1999 ACJ 781], wherein it is held that where two views are possible on the interpretation of any statute, then the view which promotes the object of legislature is to be preferred. 6. Counsel for the respondents submitted that word "corporation" occurring in section 2(e)(ii) has wide meaning and by amendment in the section 2( e )(ii) whereby after the words corporation which is not company under section 3 of the Companies Act or local authority is omitted and legislature has extended the benefit of the Adhiniyam to the properties of the local authorities including municipalities and other local authorities. 7. The meaning of word corporation came for consideration in the case of S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation Delhi and others [ AIR 1981 SC 1395 ]. In para 8 and 9 of the judgment word 'corporation' is defined and in para 10 of the judgment distinction between a corporation established by or under an Act and a body incorporated under an Act has been considered. Distinction brought out in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi [ AIR 1975 SC 1331 ] and meaning of word 'corporation' as defined has been considered. He submitted that it is held in this case that a Zila Parishad or a Gram Panchayat owes its existence and statute of an Act of Legislature. On the other hand, an association of persons constituting themselves into a company under the Companies Act or a society under the Societies Registration Act owes its existence not to the Act of Legislature but the act of parties though, it may owe its status as a body corporate to an Act of Legislature. A company incorporated under the Companies Act is not created by statute but comes into existence in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A company incorporated under the Companies Act is not created by statute but comes into existence in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There is thus a well-marked distinction between a body created by a statute and a body which, after coming into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of a statute. The term corporation is wide enough to include private corporations. 8. Counsel for the respondents referred to the judgment in the case of Ashok Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank [ AIR 1991 SC 855 ]. Bench comprising of five Judges of the apex Court considered the meaning of word "public premises" occurring in section 2(e) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. In this judgment word corporation is defined and it is held that corporation occurring in the Act includes the municipalities and other local authorities. Counsel for respondents referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjit Narayan Haksar v. Surendra Verma [ 1994 JLJ 740 ]. Interpreting the word 'corporation' in para 8 of the judgment it is held that the expression "corporation" occurring in order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure though not defined in the Code, has been held to include not only a statutory corporation, but also a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. In the Halsbury's Laws of England, it is provided that the corporations are of different kinds (1) charter companies; (2) companies incorporated by special Act of Parliament; (3) companies registered under the Companies Act etc. Non-trading corporations are illustrated by (1) municipal corporations; (2) district boards; (3) benevolent institutions; (4) universities etc. 9. Shri Jitendra Maheshwari, advocate appearing as counsel representing another municipal council argued that recently section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code is amended and thereby intention of legislature is clarified. He invited attention to M.P. Land Revenue Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2003 and submitted that in section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 words "or upon any land, which is the property of government" are substituted by the words "or upon any land which is the property of Government, or any authority, body corporate, or institution constituted or established under any State enactment". He emphasised that by the amendment word body corporate will include the Municipal Corporation, Municipalities and Nagar Panchayat. He emphasised that by the amendment word body corporate will include the Municipal Corporation, Municipalities and Nagar Panchayat. He submitted that the definition of corporation is wide enough and on the harmonious construction of the provisions of 2(e)(ii) it is apparent that legislature has intended to include properties of all local authorities within the ambit of public premises. He invited attention to the judgment in the case of M/s. British Airways P/o. v. Union of India [ AIR 2002 SC 391 ] and submitted that efforts should be made that each provision in statute will have its play. He submitted that in the case of M/s. British Airways (supra), it is held that while interpreting a statute the Court should try to sustain its validity and give such meaning to the provisions which advances the object sought to be achieved by the enactment. Court cannot approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting which make its working impossible. It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that effort should be made in construing the different provisions so that each provision will have its play and in the event of any conflict a harmonious construction should be given. The well-known principle of harmonious construction is that effect shall be given to all the provisions and for that any provision of the statute should be construed with reference to the other provisions so as to make it workable. A particular provision cannot be picked up and interpreted to defeat another provision made in that behalf under the statute. It is the duty of the Court to make such construction of a statute which shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. While interpreting a statute the Courts are required to keep in mind the consequences which are likely to flow upon the intended interpretation. In the case of Board of Trustees v. State of Delhi [ AIR 1962 SC 458 ], word corporation has been interpreted in para 8 of the judgment and while considering the question whether the board was corporation in a legal sense and what is the corporation, it is held in para 9 of the judgment that corporations may be divided into two main classes, namely, corporations aggregate and corporation sole. A corporation aggregate has been defined as a collection of individual succession under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested by the policy of the law with the capacity of acting in several respects as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations and of suing or being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation or at any subsequent period of its existence. A corporation aggregate has therefore only one capacity, namely, its corporate capacity. A corporation aggregate may be a trading corporation or a non-trading corporation. The usual examples of a trading corporation are (1) charter companies; (2) companies incorporated by special acts of Parliament; (3) companies registered under the Companies Act, etc. 10. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Forest Corporation [ AIR 1998 SC 1125 ], while interpreting the provisions of U.P. Forest C9rporation it is held that U.P. Forest Corporation is not a local authority and is not entitled for exemption from income tax. 11. Shri P.D. Bidua, Advocate also addressed the Court on behalf of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and Shri S.P. Jain, advocate addressed the Court for Municipal Council. 12. Shri K.B. Chaturvedi, Government Advocate emphasised that word corporation has wide connection which includes all local authorities including municipality and municipal corporation. 13. 11. Shri P.D. Bidua, Advocate also addressed the Court on behalf of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and Shri S.P. Jain, advocate addressed the Court for Municipal Council. 12. Shri K.B. Chaturvedi, Government Advocate emphasised that word corporation has wide connection which includes all local authorities including municipality and municipal corporation. 13. In order to understand the controversy of the word corporation occurring in section 2(e) in the Adhiniyam before and after the amendment the provisions of section 2(e) after amendment is reproduced below: "(2) (e) "public premises" means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government, and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of – (i) any company as defined in section 3, of the Companies Act, 1956 (No.1 of 1956), in which not less than fifty one per cent, of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; and (ii) any corporation not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (No.1 of 1956) established by or under a Central or State Act and owned or controlled by the State Government or a local authority. 14. Section 2(e) as it stood before amendment is reproduced below: "(2) (e) "public premises' means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government, and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of – (i) any company as defined in section 3, of the Companies Act, 1956 (No.1 of 1956), in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; and (ii) any corporation (not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (No.1 of 1956) or a local authority. 15. Under section 3 of the M.P. Official Language Act, 1957 it is provided that Hindi shall be official language of the Act for all purposes except such purposes are specifically excluded by the constitution and in respect of such matters as may be specified by the Government from time to time. The form of numerals to be used for official purpose by the State shall be Devnagri form of numerals. The form of numerals to be used for official purpose by the State shall be Devnagri form of numerals. Section 4 is reproduced below: Language to be used in Bills, etc, (1) The language to be used in – (a) all Bills to be introduced or amendment thereto to be moved in each house of the State Legislature; (b) all Acts passed by each house of the State Legislature; (c) all Ordinances promulgated under Article 213 of the Constitution of India; (d) all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued by the State Government under the Constitution of India or under any law made by the Parliament or the Legislature of the State; shall, on and from such date, as the State Government may, in respect of each of the items aforesaid, appoint by notification, by Hindi. (2) The form of numerals to be used in all Bills, Acts and Ordinances and all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws mentioned in the sub-section (1) shall be international form of Indian numerals. 16. Under the aforesaid provisions bills to be introduced in the legislative assembly, acts ordinance shall be in Hindi from the date notified by Government. Notification was issued on 28.2.1963 and published in gazette on 2.6.1963. After notification original of the Act is in Hindi in Devnagri script. English version is translation of the original Hindi text. For interoperation of provisions of section 2( e )(ii) occurring in the Adhiniyam and to understand true import of legislatuve intent, provisions of section.2(e) before and after amendment in Hindi is reproduced below: Before Amendment: fdlh ,sls fuxe tks daiuh ,DV 1956 ¼Øekad 1 lu~ 1956½ dh /kkjk 3 esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf'kr daiuh ;k LFkkuh; çkf/kdkjh u gks% After Amendment: fdlh ,sls fu;e tks daiuh vf/kfu;e 1956 ¼1956 dk la-1½ dh /kkjk 3 esa ;FkkifjHkkf'kr daiuh us gks] tks fdlh dsUnzh; ;k jkT; vf/kfu;e }kjk ;k mlds v/khu LFkkfir fd;k x;k gks vkSj jkT; ljdkj vFkok fdlh LFkkuh; çkf/kdj.k ds LokfeRok/khu ;k fu;a=.kk/khu u gks] ds gksa ;k ml fuxe }kjk ;k mldh vksj ls iV~Vs ij fy, x, gksa% On going through the provisions before amendment in section 2(e)(ii) of Adhiniyam we find that local authority was excluded from the definition of the public premises. After the amendment legislature has made drastic amendment in the provision. After the amendment legislature has made drastic amendment in the provision. Amended provision provides for a corporation (other than established under section 3 of Companies Act 1956) and established by Central or State Act or owned and controlled by State Government or Illegal authority or taken on lease by or on behalf of that corporation. 17. Thus, language of' section 2(e)(ii) is clear and specific and on translation of provision will mean the corporations which are not companies within the definition of section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, which is estabilished by or under a Central and State Act and which is under the ownership and control of State Government and local authority or corporation has taken the property on lease on its behalf. Prior to amendment in section 2(e)(ii) it was provided that any corporation which is not registered under section 3 of the Companies Act and local authority. Now the definition has been completely changed and now the corporation which is not registered as company under section 3 of the Companies Act and which is established under the Central or State Act or under the Central Government or State Government, will be public premises. 18. Municipalities are now constitutional bodies under the Constitution under Chapter 9 of the Constitution of India and municipality is defined as Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat and they have been created by the enactment of the Act of State known as M.P. Municipal Corporation Act and M.P. Municipalities Act. Therefore, as per section 2(e)(ii) 'public premises' means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government, and includes any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of. (i) ... (ii) any corporation (not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act) established by or under a Central or State Act and owned and controlled by the State Government or a local authority. 19. As held in the case of S.S. Dhanoa and Ashoka Marketing (supra) corporation consist of trading and non-trading corporations. Non-trading corporation includes municipalities, which are creature of the statute of the State. 19. As held in the case of S.S. Dhanoa and Ashoka Marketing (supra) corporation consist of trading and non-trading corporations. Non-trading corporation includes municipalities, which are creature of the statute of the State. Similarly, the properties of other local authorities will also fall in the definition of public premises, which are created under the Act of State Government, namely Panchayat, Development Authority and other bodies established under the statutory provisions or owned or controlled by State Government. 20. Shri R.D. Jain, Senior Advocate has emphasised the provision of Act will be applicable to second limb of the definition of the corporation for the purpose of section 2(e)(ii) of the Act of 1971 as interpreted in the case of Ashoka Marketing (supra). 21. Section 2(e)(ii) of Public Premises Act is reproduced below: "(2) (e) "public premises" means any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of -- (i) .... (ii) any corporation [not being a company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or a local authority I established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government. 22. This judgment of Ashoka Marketing Limited (supra) relates to interpretation of section 2(e)(ii) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, whether any corporation not being a company as defined under section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local authority is excluded from the definition of public premises, whereas under M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974, any corporation established by Central or State Act, and owned and controlled by the State Government or a local authority except company established under section 3 of Companies Act, 1956 will fall within the ambit of public premises. Corporation has been explained and they will include local authority. In the case of S.S. Dhanoa (supra), the apex Court has considered the meaning of corporation and it is held that the term corporation is wide enough to include private corporation. The word 'corporation' is wide enough to include private corporation. The word corporation occurring the section 2(e)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, will include the properties of local authorities including municipalities and other local authorities. In the case of Ashoka Marketing Limited (supra), it is held that the word corporation includes municipalities and other local authorities. The word 'corporation' is wide enough to include private corporation. The word corporation occurring the section 2(e)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, will include the properties of local authorities including municipalities and other local authorities. In the case of Ashoka Marketing Limited (supra), it is held that the word corporation includes municipalities and other local authorities. Thus, we are of the opinion that the language of section 2(e)(ii) of the Adhiniyam is clear and specific and it will mean that any corporation which is established by any Central or State Act or under them and is owned and controlled by State Government or local authority or taken on lease, therefore, corporation except the companies registered under section 3 of the Companies Act, will fall in the definition of public premises. Therefore, any corporation under the control of State Government and local authority will include any premises owned or taken on lease by the bodies under the control of State Government including local authority. 23. We are of the view that the properties owned and controlled by local authority will fall within the ambit of public premises under section 2(e)(ii) of Adhiniyam, and we hold that Hariom Verma (supra), has not laid down the correct law, and law laid down in the case of R.P Sharma (supra), is the correct law. We answer the reference as under: ."That the public premises as defined under section 2(e) of the Adhiniyam includes the premises belonging to local authority created by Central or State Act, or under the control of State Government or the local authority. 24. File be placed before the Single Bench for decision of petition in accordance with law.