Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1962 Supreme(SC) 354

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
8th November, 1962
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Chimandas Bagomal Sindhi, Appellant
Versus
Jogeshwar and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 201 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General, for India (M/s. S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of Messrs. Rajinder Narain and Co. 1234 with him), for Appellant; M/s S. N. Kherdekar, N. K. Kherdekar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates. for Respondent No. 1.
Mis. Petn No. 391 of 1956 D/-18 - 6-1958 - Bomb. at Nagpur.

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, M.C.SETALVAD, N.K.KHERDEKAR, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.KHANDEKAR, S.N.ANDLEY

The definition of a displaced person under Cl. 2(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 must be read in the light of the context of Cl. 23(1) and its meaning must be controlled by the said context.

Headnote:
CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - DISPLACED PERSON - CLS. 2(2), 23(1), 24, 24-A - INTERPRETATION - ALLOTMENT OF PREMISES TO DISPLACED PERSON - CONDITIONS - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY BY DY. COMMISSIONER.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a displaced person, was allotted a shop by the Addl. Dy. Commissioner under Cl. 23(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The respondent, the owner of the shop, challenged the allotment on the ground that the appellant had a place of business of his own and was, therefore, not entitled to the allotment. The High Court set aside the allotment Order holding that the appellant was not a displaced person within the meaning of Cl. 2(2) of the Order.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in assuming that the provisions of Cl. 23(1) and Cls. 24 and 24A impliedly postulate that the persons belonging to the respective categories specified by them can receive allotment only if they have no previous accommodation of their own. The Court held that the words of the relevant provisions are not ambiguous and that the scheme of the relevant provisions does not seem to contemplate any such limitation.
Issues: Whether the appellant was a displaced person within the meaning of Cl. 2(2) of the Order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the definition of a displaced person under Cl. 2(2) must be read in the light of the context of Cl. 23(1) and its meaning must be controlled by the said context. The Court held that the object of enabling the Dy. Commissioner to make an Order of allotment in respect of the persons specified in different categories by the relevant clause is to provide accommodation to those persons who were without any accommodation. The Court held that since that object is implicit assumption in the relevant provision, the definition must be construed in the light of the said implicit assumption of the relevant provision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the Order passed by the High Court on the writ petition was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Nagpur, with a direction that he should deal with the dispute between the parties afresh in accordance with law.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAK, J. : This appeal raises a short question about the construction of Cls. 23, 24 and 24-A in the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter called the Order) Jogeshwar s/o Parmanand Bhishikar (hereinafter called the respondent) owns a house known as the Bhishikar Bhawan in Nagpur. Block No. 2A had been let out by him to a firm known as the Dayalbagh Stores for carrying on business. Since the tenant was in arrears as to rent, the respondent obtained from the Rent Control authorities permission to terminate the said tenancy. Meanwhile, the tenant intimated to the respondent by telegram on July 24, 1955 that it had vacated the said premises on that day. Prior to the receipt of this telegram. However, the appellant Chimandas Bagomal Sindhi had made an application to the Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Nagpur, on July 15, 1955, that the premises occupied by the said tenant were likely to fall vacant, and prayed that the same should be allotted to him as he was a displaced person within the meaning of the Order. The Addl. D.C. passed an Order of provisional allotment in favour of the appellant on the same day and since then, the appellant has been in possession of the said premises.

2. The respondent them came to know about the said provisional allotment and gave intimation to the Addl. D. C. that he needed the premises for his own purposes, and so, he moved for the cancellation of the said provisional allotment Order. On July 23, 1956, the Addl. D. C. purporting to exercise his powers under Cl. 23(1) of the Order confirmed the provisional allotment in favour of the appellant.

3. The respondent then moved the Nagpur High Court by a writ petition No. 307 of 1955 for cancellation of the said Order. On April 10, 1956, Mr. Justice Bhutt set aside the Order of allotment and remanded the case for disposal in accordance with law. That is how the first stage of this dispute came to an end.

4. On remand, the Add. Dy. Commissioner confirmed the earlier Order. He held that the respondent did not need the premises for his own occupation and he thought that there was no going back on the earlier provisional Order of allotment in favour of the appellant. This second Order was challenged by the respondent by another writ petition filed in the Nagpur High Court (No. 391 of 1956). Meanwhile, the appellant had filed a Letters Patent Appeal (No. 95 of 1956) against the decision of Bhutt J. on the earlier writ petition filed by the respondent. By consent, the said Letters Patent Appeal and the subsequent writ petition filed by the respondent were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench has set aside the Order of allotment passed in favour of the appellant and allowed the subsequent writ petition filed by the respondent. It is against this Order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

5. It appears that after remand, the respondent brought it to the notice of the Addl. D. C. that the appellant owned As. -/4/- share in the Hind Vastra Bhandar and that he had, therefore, a place where he could carry on his business. This allegation was repeated by the respondent in his second writ petition and it was urged by him that in view of the fact that the appellant had a place of business of his own, he was not entitled to the accommodation allotted to him by the impugned Order. This plea was met by the appellant on the ground that the business mentioned by the respondent had been dissolved. From the affidavit filed by the appellant in that behalf it does appear that the appellant had a share in the Hind Vastra Bhandar and Krishna Watch Co., both of which partnership carried on their business at Nagpur but on April 8, l957 the said partnerships had been dissolved and so, after the said date of dissolution there was no place of business to which the appellant could lay any claim. In support of this plea, the appellant has filed the deed of Dissolution in ques

Click Here to Read the rest of this document