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

2024 Supreme(SC) 1209

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Rahees & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13050 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16460 of 2023)
Decided On : 22-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Prashant Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Saini, Adv. Mr. Pawan Silmana, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Mr. Sanobar Ali Qureshi, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abdul Mannan, Adv. Mrs. Shobhna Sharma, Adv.

Parliamentary amendments to laws in the Concurrent List prevail over State amendments due to implied repeal under Article 254 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 254 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - The High Court's interim order was challenged by the landlord regarding the validity of notice for ejectment issued under Section 106, which was amended by Parliament in 2003, superseding the U.P. amendment of 1954. The court held that the U.P. amendment is impliedly repealed and the Parliamentary amendment applies. (Paras 4, 9.6)

(B) Jurisdiction - The High Court should have considered the tenant's revision petition on its own merits rather than awaiting the opinion of a larger Bench on a reference made. (Paras 9.7)

Facts of the case:
The landlord appealed against the High Court's order continuing an interim order pending a reference to a larger Bench regarding the validity of a notice for ejectment under Section 106 of the T.P. Act.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's order was set aside, and it was directed to dispose of the tenant's petition on merits expeditiously.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 106 in light of conflicting amendments by the State and Parliament.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Parliamentary amendment to Section 106 prevails over the U.P. amendment due to implied repeal under Article 254 of the Constitution.

Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 18.11.2022 passed in Matters under Article 227 No.8207 of 2017, the appellant/landlord is before this Court. By the impugned order, the High Court stated that since there is a matter under Article 227 No.5718 of 2019, which has to be answered by a larger Bench of the High Court by way of a reference and which has a bearing on the case, the interim order is continued until further orders. A direction was issued that the matter may be considered after the answer is given by the larger Bench, referred to above. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant, who is the landlord, has preferred this appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not known as to when the larger Bench would answer the questions referred to it on a reference. However, having regard to Article 254 of the Constitution of India, particularly the proviso to Sub-clause 2 of Article 254, the amendment made by the Parliament by Section 2 of Act 3 of 2003, whereby Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, “the T.P. Act”) has been substituted with effect from 31.12.2002, would apply and the provision of the Uttar Pradesh Amendment would no longer be applicable to the present case. It was submitted that the notice for ejectment was issued on 24.07.2015 under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. The said notice was issued having regard to the Parliamentary amendment referred to above and hence the earlier amendment made to Section 106 by the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature vide 30.11.1954 would pale into insignificance on the principle of implied repeal. Therefore, on the aforesaid premise, the High Court may be requested to consider the present case without reference to the aspect regarding the validity of the notice. In the alternative, it was submitted that the proviso to Article 254 may be applied and the validity of the notice issued under Section 106 of the T.P. Act may be sustained.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent(s) submitted that as a reference was pending before the High Court, the impugned order was correctly passed and the case has to be heard subsequent to the answer given by the larger Bench on the reference order. In the circumstance, there is no merit in this appeal

6. We have perused the impugned order, which reads as under:

    “It is agreed between the parties that the matter involved in this case qua period of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Properties Act is pending decision by Larger Bench under the reference order of a concurrent Bench of this Court dated 9.9.2019 passed in Matter under Article 227 No. 5718 of 2019 and so this matter may either be connected with the said matter or be listed after judgment of the larger Bench.

    In the circumstances I direct the office to list this matter after the reference made in Matter under Article 227 No.5718 of 2019 stands answered by the larger Bench.

    Interim order, if any, shall continue to operate in the meanwhile until further orders.”

The aforesaid order has been passed in a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the respondent- tenant against an order of ejectment.

7. Section 106 of the T.P. Act, as it stood prior to 31.12.2002, read as under:

    “106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage.— In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by six months' notice expiring with the end of year of the tenancy; and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month, terminable, on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy.

    Every notice under th

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