Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Sinha JJ.
Kedarnath Gupta
Versus
Nagindra Narayan Sinha
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 319 of 1952 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 08, 1953
BIHAR BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1947 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION - JURISDICTION OF HOUSE CONTROLLER - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - EFFECT OF ORDINANCE AND AMENDING ACT - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 22 - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FACTUAL FINDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a tenant, challenged the order of the House Controller directing him to vacate the premises on the ground that the landlords required the house for their own occupation. The petitioner contended that the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, was unconstitutional, that the House Controller was not a Court, and that the second application for eviction was barred under Section 22 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, was constitutional and valid. The Court found that the State Legislature had the competence to create the office and jurisdiction of the House Controller under item 3 of the State List, namely, "Administration of Justice". The Court also held that the Ordinance and the Amending Act had the effect of reviving and re-enacting the Act of 1947, which had expired on 14-3-1952. The Court further held that Section 22 of the Act did not bar the second application for eviction as the circumstances had changed since the rejection of the previous application.
Issues: 1. Whether the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, was constitutional and valid. 2. Whether the House Controller was a Court. 3. Whether the second application for eviction was barred under Section 22 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, was constitutional and valid. The Court found that the State Legislature had the competence to create the office and jurisdiction of the House Controller under item 3 of the State List, namely, "Administration of Justice". The Court also held that the Ordinance and the Amending Act had the effect of reviving and re-enacting the Act of 1947, which had expired on 14-3-1952. 2. The Court did not decide whether the House Controller was a Court, as it found that the State Legislature had the competence to create the office and jurisdiction of the House Controller under item 3 of the State List, namely, "Administration of Justice". 3. The Court held that Section 22 of the Act did not bar the second application for eviction as the circumstances had changed since the rejection of the previous application.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition with costs.
Ramaswami, J.
1. In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule calling upon the House Controller of Patna to show cause why a writ in the nature of Prohibition or Certiorari should not be issued for quashing his order dated 12-9-1952, directing the petitioner to vacate a house.
2. The petitioner is tenant of a house bearing holding No. 67, circle No. 27, ward No. 9 of Patna City Municipality. Respondent I, Nagindra Naraln Sinha and others two respondents are the landlords who had let out the house to the petitioner on a rent of Rs. 35/- per month. In May, 1951, respondents 1 to 3 made an application to the House Controller under Sec.11 of the Bihar Act 3 of 1947 praying that the petitioner should be ordered to vacate the house on the ground that respondents 1-3 required the house bona fide for their own occupation. The petitioner appeared and showed cause. The case of the petitioner was that the respondents had previously made an application to the House Controller in 1948 on the same ground of personal necessity but the application was rejected by the House Controller. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner against the order of the Controller on behalf of the respondents but the appeal was dismissed.
The petitioner, therefore, contended before the House Controller that the second application was barred under Sec.22, Bihar Buildings Control Act of 1347. The Controller disallowed the objection holding that respondents 1-3 required the house bona fide for their own occupation. The Controller made the order of eviction against the petitioner on 12-9-1952.
3. It is necessary to set out the legislative background of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1947. On 1-10-1946, the Governor of Bihar enacted the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Ordinance of 1946. The provisions of the ordinance were re-enacted by the Bihar Legislature with some modification in Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of 1947. Sub-section 3 of Sec.1 of the Act of 1947 stated that the Act shall remain in force for such period as the Provincial Government may, by notification fix. Possibly on account of the decision of the Federal Court in -- Jatindra Nath V/s. Province of Bihar, AIR 1949 FC 175 (A), the Bihar Legislature enacted Bihar Buildings (Lease, Bent and Eviction) Control (Amending and Validating) Act, 1949. This Act amended Sub-section (3) of Sec.1 of the Act of 1947. The amendment was to the effect that the Act of 1947 shall remain in force for a period of five years. This period of five years terminated on 14-3-1952. Before this date the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act of 1951 was passed to which the Governor assented on 23-11-1951. By this amending Act, for the words "for five years" in Sec.1, Sub-section (3) the words and figures "up to and including 14th March 1954" were substituted.
In -- Mangtulal V/s. Radha Shyam, AIR 1953 Pat 14 (PB) (B), it was declared by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court that the amending Act of 1951 was unconstitutional as it did not receive the assent of the President under Art. 254 of the Constitution. The judgment was pronounced on 23-9-1952. On the next date the Governor promulgated Ordinance 5 of 1952 by which the Bihar Act of 1947 was continued in force for so long the Ordinance remained in force. On 9-3-1953, the Bihar Amending Act 5 of 1953 was passed by the Bihar Legislature and in Sub-section 1 of Sec.3 of the Bihar Act of 1947, the words and figures "Up to and including 14th March 1954" were substituted for the words "for five years". The amending Act received the assent of the President on 9-3-1953.
4. In support of this rule Mr. B. C. Ghose submitted in the first place that Sec.11, Bihar Buildings Control Act of 1947 was unconstitutional and void. The contention of the learned counsel was that the Bihar Legislature had no competence to enact such legislation. The learned counsel submitted that the subject-matte
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
