Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : I.N.Modi,L.N.Chhangani
NAWAL MAL - Appellant
Versus
NATHU MAL - Respondent
Civil Ref. 99 Of 1959
Decided On : 01/20/1961
RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - Applicability to Cantonment Areas - Legislative Competence of State Legislature - Entry 3 of List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution - Interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
A suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment was filed in the Court of the Munsif, Ajmer District, and later transferred to the Court of the Munsif, Nasirabad. The plaintiff, a landlord, claimed ejectment of the defendant, a tenant, on the ground of default in payment of rents and personal necessity. The suit premises were located in the Nasirabad cantonment area. The question arose whether the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act of 1950), as amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amending and Extending Act, 1957 (Amending Act of 1957), could be applied to the cantonment area, considering the legislative competence of the State Legislature.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act of 1950, as amended by the Amending Act of 1957, in so far as it was made applicable to the cantonment of Nasirabad, was ultra vires the legislature of the State. The Court further held that the Act of 1952, which was in force in the area in question and was repealed by the Amending Act of 1957, must still be held to be in force in this area.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 2 (i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950) as amended by the Amending and Extending Act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957) in so far as it applies to the Cantonment Area of Nasirabad and Section 2 (2) of the said Act which brings into force at once Sections 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of that Act and authorises the State of Rajasthan to extend the remaining provisions to such areas in that State and from such date as may from time to time be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette in so far as it affects the Cantonment area of Nasirabad is beyond the legislative competence of the Rajasthan State Legislature for the reason that the subject-matter covered by the said Rajastham Act is within the exclusive competence of the Union Parliament by virtue of Article 246 read with entry 3 in list 1 of the 7th schedule of the Constitution of India so far as Cantonment Area of Nasirabad is concerned? 2. Whether the provisions contained in Section 2 (1) and (2) of the said rajasthan Act in so far as they apply or affect the cantonment area of nasirabad are repugnant to the provisions contained in Section 3 of the cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (Act No. 46 of 1957) of the Union Parliament and void under Article 254 of the constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Entry 3 of List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with the delimitation of cantonment areas, local self-government in such areas, the constitution and powers within such areas of cantonment authorities, and the regulation of house accommodation (including the control of rents) in such areas, confers exclusive legislative power to the Union Parliament on matters related to cantonment areas. 2. The control of rents in cantonment areas, even between private landlords and tenants, falls within the ambit of Entry 3 of List I of the 7th Schedule and is not covered by the State or concurrent legislative field. 3. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, as amended by the Amending Act of 1957, in so far as it was made applicable to the cantonment of Nasirabad, was ultra vires the legislature of the State, as the State Legislature lacked the legislative competence to enact such a law for the cantonment area. 4. The Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, enacted by the Union Parliament, further reinforces the exclusive legislative power of the Union Parliament in matters of rent control in cantonment areas.
Final Decision: The Court answered the first question in the affirmative, holding that Section 2 (1) and (2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, as amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amending and Extending Act, 1957, in so far as they applied to the cantonment area of Nasirabad, were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The Court did not answer the second question, considering it redundant in light of the answer to the first question.
MODI J.
( 1 ) THIS reference originally came before a learned single Judge and has in turn been made by him to a larger bench.
( 2 ) THE questions referred to this bench for answer are as follows:
(1) Whether Section 2 (i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950) as amended by the Amending and Extending Act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957) in so far as it applies to the Cantonment Area of Nasirabad and Section 2 (2) of the said Act which brings into force at once Sections 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of that Act and authorises the State of Rajasthan to extend the remaining provisions to such areas in that State and from such date as may from time to time be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette in so far as it affects the Cantonment area of Nasirabad is beyond the legislative competence of the Rajasthan State Legislature for the reason that the subject-matter covered by the said Rajastham Act is within the exclusive competence of the Union Parliament by virtue of Article 246 read with entry 3 in list 1 of the 7th schedule of the Constitution of India so far as Cantonment Area of Nasirabad is concerned?
(2) Whether the provisions contained in Section 2 (1) and (2) of the said rajasthan Act in so far as they apply or affect the cantonment area of nasirabad are repugnant to the provisions contained in Section 3 of the cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (Act No. 46 of 1957) of the Union Parliament and void under Article 254 of the constitution of India?
( 3 ) AT the outset we may state a few facts which have culminated in this reference. The plaintiff Nawal Mal filed a suit against the defendant Nathu Lal for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment in the Court of the Munsif, Ajmer District, Ajmer in the first instance, and thence, it was transferred to the Court Of the Munsif, nasirabad, from whom this reference has emanated. The plaintiff is a landlord and the defendant a tenant. This suit was filed on the 1st of April, 1958. The plaintiff claimed ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rents and further that the former required, the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for the use or occupation of himself or his family within the meaning of the rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950 ). The Act of 1950 was made applicable to the Nasirabad cantonment area by this state from the 27th of November, 1957 by a notification dated 27th November, 1957 issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950, as amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amending and Extending act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act of 1957), and published in the Rajasthan. Gazette Extra Ordinary Part 4 (A) at page 157 of the same date. Prior to this, the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act No. 38 of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) was in force in the Nasirabad cantonment area. This Act was passed by the Indian Parliament and was brought into force in the Ajmer territory, in which the Nasirabad cantonment area is included, on the 9th of June, 1952. When the case, came up for arguments before the Munsif, it was strenuously contended before him on behalf of the defendant that the Act of 1950 could not be applied to the present case which arises out of the said cantonment area, inasmuch as the legislature of this State had no legislative competence to enact any law for the regulation of house accommodation including the control of rent in the cantonment area of Nasirabad, this head of legislation falling within entry 3 in list 1 of the 7th schedule of the Constitution, and, therefore, being exclusively a union subject. It was, therefore, contended, that Section 2 of the Act of 1950 in so far as the provisions of that Act were extended thereunder to the Nasirabad cantonment area, was ultra vires of the legislature
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
