Back
1971 Supreme(J&K) 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali,Janki Nath Bhat,Jaswant Singh, JJ.
P.N. Chopra - Appellant
Versus
Kuldip Raj Gupta - Respondent
CSA No. 6/1970
Decided On : 15 March, 1971
Advocate For Appellant: Janak Lal Sehgal
Advocate For Respondent: D.N. Mahajan
Advocate For Respondent: Kuldeep Raj Gupta
The income of a tenant for the purpose of determining whether the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act applies is to be determined with reference to the year in which the tenancy commenced.
Headnote:
HOUSES AND SHOPS RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 1(3)(III) - INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS "PER ANNUM" - INCOME OF THE TENANT TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TENANCY COMMENCED.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant, who was his tenant. The defendant claimed that the suit was governed by the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act (the Act), which provided protection to tenants with an income of less than Rs. 20,000 per annum. The plaintiff argued that the Act did not apply because the defendant's income exceeded Rs. 20,000 per annum.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the words "per annum" in Section 1(3)(iii) of the Act meant "per year" and that the income of the tenant had to be determined with reference to the year in which the tenancy commenced. In the present case, the tenancy commenced on 1st April, so the court held that the relevant year was the period from April of the year preceding the suit to the end of March of the year in which the suit was filed.
Issues: Whether the suit was governed by the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the words "per annum" in Section 1(3)(iii) of the Act to mean "per year" and held that the income of the tenant had to be determined with reference to the year in which the tenancy commenced.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of the lower courts.
1. This is a defendants second appeal in a suit for ejectment brought by the plaintiff under the following circumstances.
2. The defendant was induced as a tenant of the premises by the plaintiff by virtue of a rent deed executed on 1st April, 1962 at a monthly rent of Rs. 125. Under the rent deed the tenancy was originally for 11 months and it was continued from year to year. Under the terms of the rent deed the parties agreed that the defendant could be ejected after one months notice to quit was served on him. The plaintiff filed the present action after giving notice dated 24-4-1967 to the defendant to quit and pleaded that the provisions of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) had no application to the present suit which was governed by the general law. The Sub-Judge Jammu accepted the contention of the plaintiff and held that the income of the defendant during the year in question being over Rs. 20,000 the suit was governed by the general law. The trial court further held that the notice to quit was valid in law and was duly served on the defendant. On these findings the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then went up in appeal to the D. J. who upheld the findings arrived at by the learned Sub-Judge and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal to this court.
3. The appeal in the first instance was heard by a Division Bench which referred the case to the Full Bench, in view of an interesting point of law involved regarding the legal significance to be attached to the words per annum as appearing in S. l(3)(iii) of the Act.
4. We have heard counsel for the parties at length. The point involved is one of first impression and as the statutory provision of the Act is peculiar to this State there is no decided case from which we could draw assistance. In order to decide the point involved, it will be necessary to quote in extense the relevant portion of S. 1(3)(iii) of the Act which runs as under:-
"Any tenant 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.
5. We have now to construe the legal significance of the word per annum and to find out what is the point of time when the income of the defendant has to be determined. In Blacks Law Dictionary (4th Edn.) the word annum has been referred to as a year. In fact the word annum is derived from the Latin word Annus which as defined in the aforesaid dictionary means a year, the period of three hundred and sixty-five days. Thus the words per annum would only mean per year. As regards the connotation of the word year this does not present such difficulty because in common parlance the word year would naturally mean the cycle of 365 days covered by 12 calendar months. In Blacks Law Dictionary (Supra) year has been defined thus: -
"The period in which the revolution of the earth round the Sun, and the accompanying changes in the order of nature are completed. Generally, when a statute speaks of a year, twelve calendar, and not lunar, months are intended."
6. It is further stated in the same dictionary, with reference to some English authorities: -
"When the period of a year is named, a calendar year is generally intended but the subject matter or context of statute or contract in which the term is found or to which it relates may alter its meaning. J L Hammett Co. V. Alfred Peates Co. 105 NE 370, 217 Mass. 520 LRA 1915 A, 334, United States Trust Co. V. Commr. of Corporations and Taxation, 209 Mass. 296, 13 N. E. 2d 6, 299 Mass. 296."
7. Similarly in Websters International Dictionary year is defined thus:
"the period 365¼ solar days required for one revolution of the earth around the Sun" a cycle in the Gregorian calendar having 365 or 366 days divided into 12 months beginning with January and ending with December -compare leap year."
8. In Whartons Law Lextcon the word year is similarly defined thus: -
"365 days,
