GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR J. -.

This second appeal raises a short point regarding the true meaning of the word income occurring in cl. (iii) of sub-s. (3-A) of S. 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 2009.

(2) The appellant-plaintiff leased certain shop premises to the respondent-defendant. After the expiry of the specified terms of the lease, the plaintiff issued a valid notice calling upon the defendant tenant to quit. The defendant, however, did not vacate the premises, with the result that a suit for eviction was instituted against him in the court of Sub-Judge at Jammu. The plaintiff took the stand that the provisions of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act did not apply to the defendant whose annual income exceeded Rs. 20,000 within the meaning of cl. (iii) of sub-s. (3-A) of S. 1 of that Act. The defendant on the other hand contended that he did not fall within the mischief of the exception embodied in cl. (iii) of sub-s. (3-A) of S. 1 of the Act because his annual income did not exceed Rs. 20,000//-. The trial court found against the defendant and decreed the suit for eviction. On appeal, the Addl. District Judge at Jammu did not agree with the trial courts construction of the word income occurring in S. 1 (3-A) (iii) of the Act. He took the view that the amount on which income-tax was assessed by the Income-tax authorities should be taken to be decisive of the question as to what the annual income of the defendant is. He came to the conclusion that for the purpose of the payment of income-tax, the defendants annual income did not exceed Rs. 20.000/- and that consequently he was not hit by the provisions of S. 1 (3-A) (iii) of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 2009. On this reasoning, the learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the suit for eviction. The plaintiff lesser has, therefore, come up in second appeal to this court.

(3) The only question that falls for determination relates to the true meaning of the word income in S. 1 (3-A) (iii) of the Shops and Houses Rent Control Act. The relevant provision runs as follows:-

"Nothing in this Act shall apply to any tenancy in respect of any house or shop where the income of the tenant, whether accruing within or outside the State exceeds Rs. 20,000/-per annum."

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that all that the defendant received in the course of one year will constitute his annual income. On the other hand, the respondents learned counsel urges that only that amount which is actually saved by the defendant during a year after meeting all his costs and expenses can be considered to "be his income. We are of the view that both these are extreme contentions. Every sum of money received by a person on whatever account and from whichever, source cannot reasonably be taken to form part of his income. A landholder may sell a parcel of his land and receive the price thereof in cash. This sum of money cannot be construed to be part of his income.

A trader may purchase goods from the manufacturer and sell them to his customers; the price he charges his customers will include his cost price and a margin of profit. The entire sale price received by him cannot reasonably be taken to be his income, for it includes his cost price also. And the cost price is in the nature of his capital.

(4) At the same time it does not appear to us to be reasonable to contend that even the profit which the trader make in his business will not) constitute his income. The contention that all the expenses of the trader must be further deducted from the amount of profits received by him and that the net saving so arrived at should alone be taken to be his income does not appear to us to be tenable. We consider that the meaning of the word income occurring in S. 1 (3-A) (iii) of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act is what comes in, not being capital. We may accept in the present context that the term income means as applied to a commercial business, the profits m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document