JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. This is a reference made by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, and it arises out of a suit filed before him for the recovery of arrears of rent, and for ejectment. The suit was filed on April 18, 1952, and the contention raised before him was that the suit was not maintainable in view of fa. 28 of the Bombay-Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which confers jurisdiction to hear rent suits upon the Civil Judges, Junior Division; and the question that the learned Judge had to consider was, whether the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act LVII of 1947, as amended by Bombay Act XLIII of 1951 applied to the premises in Question, which were situate in the cantonment area of Deolali.

2. Mr. Desai, who has appeared before us to support the reference and the view taken by the learned Judge, viz., that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, LVII of 1947, does not apply to cantonment areas, has contended, that under the Constitution power to control rents with regard to properties situate in the cantonment areas is conferred upon Parliament by List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which is a Union List, and when the Legislature extended the operation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, LVII of 1947 up to March 31, 1953, by the amending Act XLIII of 1951 it trespassed upon the field reserved for Parliament, and the extension of the Act was not valid.

3. Mr. Desai says that whatever might have been the position when Bombay Act LVII of 1947 was passed, which was passed under the Government of India Act, the position under the Constitution is different, and the legislation must be considered from the point of view, whether under the Constitution the State Legislature is competent to enact laws controlling rents in cantonment areas.

4. Now, a similar matter came up for consideration before a division bench consisting of myself and my brother Dixit J. (A. C. Patel v. Vishwanath Chada, AIR 1954 Bom 204 (A) ). There we had to consider whether the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control Act, LVII of 1947, applied to the cantonment area of Kirkee; and the contention there put forward by Mr. Kotwal for the petitioner was that the Act did not apply because of entry 2 in List I of the Government of India Act, which conferred upon the Central Legislature the power to legislate with regard to regulation of house accommodation in cantonment areas.

We rejected that contention holding that regulation of house accommodation meant requisitioning of property, acquiring of property or allocation of property, but not the question of relations between landlord and tenant; and when the Legislature was dealing with relations of landlord and tenant, it was legislating under the power conferred upon it by entry 21 in List II.

5. Mr. Desai contends that whatever might have been the position under the Government of India Act, under the Constitution entry 3 in List I. which has taken the place of part of entry 2 in List I, is framed in a language which is different from the language used in the Government of India Act; and what is emphasized is that in entry 3 in List I we now find the expression including the control of rents, which makes it clear that Parliament has not only the power of regulating the housing accommodation, but also the power of controlling rents in cantonment areas; and. therefore, it is urged, that when the State Legislature extended the operation of the Bombay Act, LVII of 1947, up to March 31, 1953 by the amending Act XLIII of 1951, it was not competent to apply that extension to cantonment areas.

6. In our opinion that contention is not ten-able. It is a well settled principle of construction of various entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution that as far as possible an attempt must be made to reconcile entries in the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List, and that we must avoid a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document