Per Honble the C. J.

1. This appeal came to be heard by one of us. An important question relating to interpretation of Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shop Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as "The Act" was raised in the appeal. It was canvassed on behalf of the appeallant that admittedly the plaintiff claimed ejectment of the suit premises under Proviso (h) (i) to Section 11 (1) of the Act. The union of India could claim exemption from the operation of the Act under Sub-Section 3 (i) of Section 1 of the Act. It was submitted that the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Act included the Union Government. To support this proposition of law, reliance was placed upon a decision of a Division Bench of this court in ease Union of India Versus Narain Singh and ors, reported as 1976 KLJ 33. In the aforesaid decision, the view has been expressed that the expression "Government" occurring in Cl. (i) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 1 of the Act, also means the Union of India.

2. On the other hand, another Division Bench of this court while deciding the case of L. Bhagwan Dass Mengi, versus Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1961 Jammu and Kashmir, 39, took a contrary view and laid down that the word "Government" could be interpreted only to mean State Government and not union Government. In order to resolve this conflict of decision, it was felt necessary to refer the question of law to the Full Bench. This is how the case has come before us.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is, however, noticed that the Division Bench in A.I.R. 1961 J&K, 39, did not elaborately discuss the legal question and in short judgment disposed of this question. The view proceeded on concession made by the other side in that case. On the other hand, the Division Bench in 1976 KLJ (Supra) considered the question in a more detailed manner and concluded by observing that the word "Government" included the Union

Government.

3. To us, it appears that the view laid down in 1976 KLJ 31 (Supra) is the correct law on the subject. There is no warrant for the proposition that the expression "Government" occurring in clause (i) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 1 of the Act is confined only to the Government of the State. As a matter of fact the affairs of the State are run by both State Government and also the Union Government in certain matters. To limit the definition of the Government, as indicated in 1961 J&K (Supra) is to exclude the Union Govt., which, undoubtedly is responsible for the administration of important affairs of the State such as matters relating to communication, defence, accounts and audit national media and other matters. There do exist institutions of the Union Government in the State which also run the affairs of the State These institutions belonging to Union Government are entitled Claim exemption from the operation of the Act just in the same way as the institutions of the State Government are entitled to claim

4. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the word "Government" occurring in Sub-Section 3(i) of Section 1 of the Act, also includes the Union Government. In that view of the matter the law laid down in A.I.R. 1961 J&K, 39 (Supra) cannot be held to be a good law on the subject.

5. The question is answered accordingly.

The case will now go before the appropriate Bench for disposing of the appeal on the other matters.

Dated 3rd Nov 1978. sd/-Chief Justice

Sd/- Judge

Per Dr. Anand J.

6.I have had the advantage of going through the judgment prepared by my lord the Chief Justice. I agree with the conclusion and the reasonings giving therein. I would, however like to add a few words of my own.

7. The expression "Government" occurring in sub-section 3 (1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act has not been defined in the Act itself. The legislature, however, in its supreme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document