1983 Supreme(AP) 69
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SARDAR ALI KHAN
S.Bikshapathi - Appellant
Versus
N.Lakshmana Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 02-24-83
The Central Government has the power to extend rent control laws to Cantonment Areas with modifications and restrictions under Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, and such extension does not require a follow-up enactment by the State Legislature.
Headnote:
CANTONMENT AREAS - EXTENSION OF RENT CONTROL LAWS ACT, 1957 - SECTION 3 - APPLICABILITY OF RENT CONTROL ACT TO CANTONMENT AREAS - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO EXTEND RENT CONTROL LAWS TO CANTONMENT AREAS - MODIFICATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - STATE LEGISLATURE'S ROLE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant in a mulgi located in the Secunderabad Cantonment Area, challenged the eviction order passed against him for non-payment of rent. He argued that the Rent Control Act was not applicable to the Cantonment Area and that the Central Government's notification extending the Act to the area was insufficient without a follow-up enactment by the State Legislature.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Central Government has the power to extend the Rent Control Act to Cantonment Areas with modifications and restrictions under Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957. The notification issued by the Central Government extending the Act to the Secunderabad Cantonment Area was valid and sufficient, and no further enactment by the State Legislature was required.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rent Control Act is applicable to Cantonment Areas. 2. Whether the Central Government's notification extending the Rent Control Act to the Secunderabad Cantonment Area was valid and sufficient. 3. Whether a follow-up enactment by the State Legislature was necessary to make the Rent Control Act applicable to the Cantonment Area.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 empowers the Central Government to extend rent control laws to Cantonment Areas with modifications and restrictions. 2. The Central Government's notification extending the Rent Control Act to the Secunderabad Cantonment Area was valid and sufficient under Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957. 3. No follow-up enactment by the State Legislature was necessary to make the Rent Control Act applicable to the Cantonment Area.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the eviction order against the petitioner. The petitioner was granted a period of three months to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the landlord.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dt. 19-4-82 in R. A. No. 85/1977 passed by the chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad confirming the order of eviction of the revision petitioner passed by the Court of the Rent Controller, Secunderabad in R. C. No. 279/ 1975. Both the Courts have given a concurrent finding that the petitione herein has committed wilful default in payment of rents and was, therefore, liable to be evicted from the suit mulgi. The plea of the petitioner tenant that he effected repairs to the premises was turned down and it was held that he had no right to withhold the payment of rents on the pretext of of fecting repairs. He was held to be a chronic defaulter in payment of rents for the period from 1-5-1974 to 31-5 1975. A perusal of the order of the lower appellate Court reveals that the claim of the petitioner that he has incurred this expenditure for effecting repairs to the premises has not been substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence. The Supreme Court has laid down in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing works vs Rangaswamy (A I R 1980 supreme Court, P. 1253) that a concurrent finding based on evidence should not normally be touched by the High court, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Even otherwise I do not find any illegality or material error of jurisdiction in the order under revision on this aspect of the case warranting any interference in exercise of the revisional powers under section 22 of the A P Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the "rent Control Act")
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M Shankaraiah has raised another legal point about the applicability of the provisions of the Rent control Act to the Cantonment Areas. The Mulgi in question in this case bearing No. 1-1-4 (Mulgi No. 4) situated at Commissory Bazaar, Bowenpally, secunderabad is within the secunderabad Cantonment Area, and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under the Rent Control Act are not maintainable. A Court notice was issued to the learned Advocate general to clarify this point at the time of the admission of the C R P it self. In this connection it would be pertinent to refer to Sec. 3 of the Cantonments (Extention of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 which is in the following terms; "3. Power to extend to cantonments laws relating to control of rents and regulation of house accommodation. The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to any cantonment with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which is in force on the date of the notification in the State in which the contonment is situated: provided that nothing contained in any enactment so extended shall apply to- (a) any premises within the cantonment belonging to the Government (b) any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the government in respect of premises within the cantonment taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government; or (c) any house within the cantonment which is, or may be, appropriated toy the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923". A reading of the above Section makes it clear that the Central Government has the power to issue a notification in the official Gazette extending the Laws relating to Control of Rents and regulations of House accommodation with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit. The learned Advocate general appearing in pursuance of court notice has drawn my attention to the Notification issued by Ministry of defence, New Delhi on the 8th of august, 1973 and published in the gazette of India, Extraordinary. By virtue of this notification issued in pursuance of the power conferred by sub-Section (1; of Section 3 of the contonments (Extension of Rent Control La