1960 Supreme(Pat) 207

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Kanhaiya Singh JJ.
Babu Jagtanand
Versus
Satyanarayanji
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 1314 of 1956 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 01, 1960

The Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, as it stood before its amendment by Bihar Act 16 of 1955, was constitutionally valid and operative in cantonment areas, but the kirayanama dated 31st August 1952, which was the basis of the alleged lease, was not a valid lease for one year as it was not registered as required under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Headnote:

BIHAR BUILDINGS (LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION) CONTROL ACT, 1947 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - CONTROL OF RENTS IN CANTONMENT AREAS - POWER OF STATE LEGISLATURE - REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - LEASE FOR ONE YEAR - REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 107 - EFFECT OF UNREGISTERED LEASE - AMENDMENT OF ACT - RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - VESTED RIGHTS.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from a house in Dinapur Cantonment, claiming that they had let out the house to the defendant for a period of one year from 1st September 1952 to 31st August 1953, at a monthly rent of Rs. 30.00 on the basis of a kirayanama dated 31st August 1952. The defendant contested the suit, denying the existence of a yearly tenancy and claiming protection under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 3 of 1947).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, as it stood before its amendment by Bihar Act 16 of 1955, was constitutionally valid and operative in cantonment areas. However, the court also held that the kirayanama dated 31st August 1952, which was the basis of the alleged lease, was not a valid lease for one year as it was not registered as required under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court further held that the amendment made by Bihar Act 16 of 1955, which excluded the local area of Dinapore Cantonment from the application of Bihar Act 3 of 1947, did not have retrospective effect and therefore did not affect the rights of the parties in the present case.

Issues: 1. Whether the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, as it stood before its amendment by Bihar Act 16 of 1955, was constitutionally valid and operative in cantonment areas? 2. Whether the kirayanama dated 31st August 1952, which was the basis of the alleged lease, was a valid lease for one year? 3. Whether the amendment made by Bihar Act 16 of 1955, which excluded the local area of Dinapore Cantonment from the application of Bihar Act 3 of 1947, had retrospective effect?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, as it stood before its amendment by Bihar Act 16 of 1955, was constitutionally valid and operative in cantonment areas. The court interpreted Entry No. 3 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with the regulation of house accommodation (including the control of rents) in cantonment areas, as giving Parliament the power to regulate house accommodation and control rents in cantonment areas, but not the power to control rents between private landlords and tenants. The court held that this power was left by the Constituent Assembly to the State Legislature under Item No. 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 2. The court held that the kirayanama dated 31st August 1952, which was the basis of the alleged lease, was not a valid lease for one year as it was not registered as required under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court interpreted Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act as requiring a lease of immoveable property for a term exceeding one year to be registered, and held that the kirayanama in question, which was for a period of one year, required registration. 3. The court held that the amendment made by Bihar Act 16 of 1955, which excluded the local area of Dinapore Cantonment from the application of Bihar Act 3 of 1947, did not have retrospective effect and therefore did not affect the rights of the parties in the present case. The court applied the principle that vested rights of a litigant cannot be taken away by legislation in the course of a pending action unless the amending legislation is expressly made retrospective so as to affect such right or that it takes away by necessary implication such a vested right.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree granted in favor of the plaintiffs by the lower courts, and dismissed the suit brought by the plaintiffs for ejectment of the defendant.