SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 158

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
HARKESH CHAND – APPELLANT
VERSUS
KRISHAN GOPAL MEHTA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1778 OF 2010
Decided On : 13-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nikhil Goel, Adv.
For the Respondents: R.D. Upadhyay, Anurag Dubey, Rajesh Pathak, Abhishek Chakraborty, S.R. Setia, Advs.

MAIN POINT
When provisions of repealed Act are not inconsistent with the provisions of the re-enacted Act, provisions of the old would have effect.

Headnote:(a) United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 – Sections 2, 3(a), 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 16 – Applicability extended to Doiwala town by notification dated 31st March, 1949 – notification not expressly repealed – Continued to be effective even after repeal of the Act. (Para 14)

       (b) United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 – Section 3(a) – Applying protection to tenants to Doiwala town – Not inconsistent with section 21, Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Former would have application – Section 24, U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904. (Para 19, 20, 25)

       (1962) 1 SCR 9; (1953) 4 SCR 773 – Relied upon

       (c) U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 – Section 24 – The notification under Act, 1947 continued in spite of its repeal and enactment of the 1972 Act – Legislature not intending to take away protection to tenants during the hiatus between the two Acts – Legislature also did not intend to provide unrestricted right to evict the tenants. (Para 27)

       (1972) 2 SCC 668; (2002) 3 SCC 481 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       In the impugned judgment, the High Court directed the tenant to be evicted. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord. The First Appellate Court dismissed the landlord's appeal. In the Second Appeal, the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of both the courts below.

       Finding of the Court:

       The suit is untenable for the want of permission under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and is liable to be dismissed.

       Result: Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.

This is a tenant's appeal. In the impugned judgment, the High Court directed the tenant to be evicted. The Trial Court dismissed the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord. The First Appellate Court dismissed the landlord's appeal. In the Second Appeal, the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of both the courts below.

2. The tenancy is in respect to a small shop situated in a rural area in the village of Daishwala, Doiwala Town, located in the Dehradun district of Uttarakhand. On the 19th of September, 1972, the landlord issued a notice terminating the tenancy of the shop under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and demanded the possession of the shop.

3. The landlord filed the present suit for eviction on the 1st of October 1972. The Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun dismissed Small Cause Case No.85 of 1972 with costs. The Trial Court held that even though The United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U.P. Act No. III of 1947) hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947" had been repealed by the aforementioned date and replaced by a new rent act [The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972]hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1972" which was brought into force on the 15th of July, 1972, the old act applied to the suit property.

4. The Additional District Judge, Dehradun, dismissed the revision petition No. 43 of 1976 filed by the landlord. It was held that the notification by which the provisions of the old act were applicable to the Doiwala area in the year 1949 continued and remained in force on the date when the notice of termination of the tenancy was issued. Accordingly, the tenancy was protected by the Act of 1947.

5. The landlord approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by way of Writ Petition No. 25951 of 2000. This writ petition was transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital and re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 4882 of 2001.

6. The High Court of Uttarakhand upheld the landlord's plea that the notice which terminated the tenancy of the shop under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was valid. The High Court held that the old Act under which the Doiwala area was covered by a notification had been repealed and replaced by the new Act. The old Act of 1947 did not cover the rural areas that are not specially notified. The special notification with respect to Doiwala area came into existence only on the 23rd of January, 1973 and therefore, between the 15th of July, 1972 (when the old act along with its notification stood repealed), and the 23rd of January, 1973 (when the notification was issued), there was no protection to the tenants in Doiwala area under any law. Thus, the notice terminating the tenancy was valid. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Revision Court by which the landlord's suit was dismissed.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court that decreed the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord, the appellant approached this Court. This Court granted special leave to appeal, and hence this appeal.

8. The questions that fall for consideration before us are -

(i) Whether or not, the tenancy in question is protected by Act No.III of 1947.

(ii) Whether or not, the notification dated 31st of March 1949 which applied the provisions of the Act of 1947 to Doiwala town was in force on the 19th of September, 1972, i.e. when the landlord terminated the tenancy and sought possession of the suit premises.

(iii) Whether or not, Section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 continued the notification dated 31st of March 1949 that protects Doiwala town by applying the provisions of the Act of 1947.

9. A similar notification was issued under the re-enacted Act of 1972 on the 21st of March, 1973. The Act of 1947 was a temporary statute enacted to control the letting and






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top