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

1964 Supreme(Ker) 47

Judges : K.K.MATHEW
Krishna Iyer - Appellant
Versus
Ramakrishna Iyer - Respondent
Case No : S. A. No. 1429 of 1962
Decided On : 02/20/1964
Advocates Appeared :
A. S. Krishna Iyer; For Appellant Joseph Augustine; M. C. Mathew; For Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicability of a legislative provision to a specific area is not automatically affected by subsequent administrative changes, and the government's intention to cease the provision's operation in the area must be explicitly stated through modification of the notification.

Headnote:

Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act - Extension of Act to Panchayat Area - Interpretation of Notification - Applicability of Act to Decree Schedule Property - Madras City Tenants Protection Act - Interpretation of Municipal District - Applicability of Bengal Tenancy Act - Effect of subsequent inclusion of area in Municipality on Act's operation

Fact of the Case:

This case involves an appeal by the decreeholder against an order in execution dismissing his application for recovery of possession of the decree schedule property. The dispute arose from the extension of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act to the Chowghat Panchayat, subsequent inclusion of the property in the Guruvayoor Township, and the applicability of the Act to the decree schedule property.

Finding of the Court:

The lower appellate court held that the area where the property is situated was one to which the Act applied, and therefore the decreeholder was not entitled to recover possession. The court found that the Act continued to apply to the area despite subsequent administrative changes, and the decreeholder had no right to recover possession except in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the interpretation of the notification extending the Act to the Panchayat area, the applicability of the Act to the decree schedule property following administrative changes, and the effect of subsequent inclusion of the area in the Guruvayoor Township on the Act's operation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents related to the interpretation of similar legislative provisions in other Acts, such as the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and the Bengal Tenancy Act, to determine the applicability of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. It emphasized that the Act continued to apply to the area despite subsequent administrative changes, and the government's intention to cease the Act's operation in the particular area should have been explicitly stated through modification of the notification under S.1(3).

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.

Judgment :-

1. This is an appeal by the decreeholder against an order in execution dismissing his application for recovery of possession of the decree schedule property. The decree was one for recovery of possession of a property with a building thereon on deposit of certain amount in court. The 1st defendant who opposed the application for execution contended that the building was not liable to be surrendered as it was situated in an area where the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, Act 16 of 1959 as amended by Act 29 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was in force, and that the conditions necessary for recovery of possession were not satisfied in the case.

2. The execution court held that the defendant was not entitled to resist the application for delivery of possession for the reason that the area where the building is situated was not an area to which the Act applied, and therefore it allowed the application of the decreeholder. On appeal by the 1st defendant, the lower appellate court held that the area where the property is situated was one to which the Act applied, and therefore the decreeholder was not entitled to recover possession.

3. Originally the property which was sought to be recovered was within the area of the Chowghat Panchayat. The Act was extended to the Chowghat Panchayat by a notification of the Government. That notification is as follows:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of S.1 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959, (Act 16 of 1959) the Government of Kerala hereby apply all the provisions of the said Act to the Chowghat Panchayat in Trichur District with effect on and from 15th December 1961".

The Guruvayoor Township came into existence as per Guruvayoor Township Act, Act 43 of 1961. That Act came not force on 26-1-1962, and, as a result of it the decree schedule property was removed from the Chowghat Panchayat and was included in the Guruvayoor Township. Sub-section (2) of S.1 of the Act states that the Act will apply to the areas mentioned in the schedule to the Act. S.1(3) provides that,

"The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, apply all or any of the provisions of this Act to any other area in the State with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification and may by like notification, cancel or modify such notification, or withdraw the application of all or any of the provisions of this Act from any area to which this Act applies under sub-section (2)".

S. 3 of the Panchayat Act (Act 32 of 1960) provides that, "The Government may by notification in the Gazette

(a) declare any village or group of adjacent villages or portions thereof to be a Panchayat area for the purposes of this Act and specify the name and headquarters of the panchayat, or

(b) exclude from a Panchayat area any village or portion thereof comprised in it; or

(c) include in a Panchayat area any village or portion thereof; or

(d) cancel a notification issued under Clause (a) or alter the name and headquarters of the Panchayat as notified under the said clause:".

By the extension of the Act to the Chowghat Panchayat, I think, what the Government intended was that the Act would -be in force in the area included in that Panchayat at the time of the notification, notwithstanding the subsequent exclusion of a particular area from the jurisdiction of that Panchayat for the purpose of Panchayat administration. The subsequent inclusion or exclusion of any area in or from that Panchayat would not affect the applicability of the Act to the area so included or excluded.

4. It was argued by counsel for the appellant that the intention behind the notification was that the Act should apply only to the area under the administration of the Chowghat Panchayat, and as the area where the decree schedule property is situated was removed from that Panchayat and included in the Guruvayoor Township at the time when the application for execution was filed in the case, the Act cann







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
whatsapp-icon Back to top