Back
1975 Supreme(J&K) 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
D.D. Thakur, J.
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
Rani Fotedar - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 49/1973
Decided On : 10 January, 1975
Advocate For Appellant: Ram Nath Bhalgotra
Advocate For Respondent: Ch. Inder Dass
The word "Government" in Section 1(3)(I) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 2009 includes the Union Government.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HOUSES AND SHOPS RENT CONTROL ACT, 2009 - SECTION 1(3)(I) - APPLICABILITY TO UNION GOVERNMENT - INTERPRETATION - GOVERNMENT INCLUDES UNION GOVERNMENT - TENANCY IN FAVOR OF UNION GOVERNMENT EXEMPTED FROM ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India took on lease a bungalow in Jammu for a period of three years. The owners of the bungalow subsequently sold it to the respondents, who filed a suit for ejectment against the Union of India. The Union of India contended that the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 2009 (the Act) was not applicable to the tenancy, as it was a Government tenancy. The trial court agreed and dismissed the suit. The petitioners, the Union of India, filed a revision application challenging the trial court's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Act was not applicable to the tenancy in question. The court interpreted the word "Government" in Section 1(3)(I) of the Act to include the Union Government. The court also held that the income of the Union Government exceeded Rs. 20,000 per annum, and therefore the tenancy was not exempt from the Act under Section 1(3)(II).
Issues: 1. Whether the Act was applicable to the tenancy in question. 2. Whether the word "Government" in Section 1(3)(I) of the Act included the Union Government. 3. Whether the income of the Union Government exceeded Rs. 20,000 per annum.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the word "Government" in Section 1(3)(I) of the Act to include the Union Government based on the following factors: a. The general scheme of the Constitution of India and the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir envisages a Federal system of Government, with both the Union and the State Governments having their own sphere of action and jurisdiction. b. The definition of the word "Government" in Section 3(15) of the Jammu and Kashmir General Clauses Act, 1977, was deleted with effect from 26-1-1957, indicating that the Legislature did not intend to exclude the Union Government from the definition of "Government". c. The Indian General Clauses Act (X of 1897) defines "Government" to include both the Central Government and any State Government, and although this definition does not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it provides a basis for the opinion that the "Government" occurring in Section 1(3) of the Act includes the Central Government and the State Government both. d. The ordinary meaning of the word "Government" includes an organization or a governing body deriving authority to govern both from the Central and the State sources. 2. The court held that the income of the Union Government exceeded Rs. 20,000 per annum based on the fact that the national revenues run into hundreds of crores. The court rejected the argument that the Union Government's deficit budget meant that its income did not exceed Rs. 20,000, as the revenues of the Union are its income, even if they are appropriated to discharge sovereign functions and result in a deficit budget.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision application, holding that the Act was not applicable to the tenancy in question and that the Union Government was entitled to possession of the bungalow.
2. The counsel for the parties has not made any grievance in this court, regarding the absence of a formal issue. In my opinion also the absence of a formal issue which the trial court would have been well advised to frame, does not vitiate the order, as in fact and substance, the court as also the counsel for the parties were aware of the scope of the dispute on which the arguments were heard by the trial court and which has been disposed of by the order of the trial court impugned in this application.
3. Mr. R. N. Bhalgotra appearing in support of the application submitted that the Act was applicable to the House in question and therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree for recovery of possession except on the grounds mentioned in Section 11 of the Act. The argument of Mr. Bhalgotra is based on the provisions of Section 1 sub-section 3 clauses (i) and (iii) of the Act.
For a correct appreciation of the argument of Mr. Bhalgotra sub-section 3 of Section 1 of the Act is reproduced hereunder: -
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), nothing in this Act shall apply to-
(i) any house or premises belonging to, taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government;
(ii) any tenancy in respect of any house or shop where the income of the tenants, whether accruing within or outside the State exceeds Rs 20.000/- per annum."
4. The contention is that the word "Government" occurring in clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act does not include the Union Government and therefore the application of the Act cannot be excluded in respect of a house, which has been taken on lease by the Union Government. Secondly it is contended that the income of the Union of India, the tenant in this case, cannot be said to exceed Rs. 20.000/- per annum, as the Union Budget is a deficit one.
5. I propose to take up both the contentions as I feel that the judgment of this court in Bhagwan Dass Mengis case A. I. R. 1961 J & K 39 is based more or less on the concession made by the parties and no reasons have been assigned by the court for the conclusion that a house taken on lease by the Union Government is not subject to the provisions of the Act.
6. Mr. Bhalgotra submitted that the word "Government" has been defined in Se
