Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia and Rajendra Nath Mittal JJ.
Jag Dutta
Versus
Savitri Devi
Civil Revision No. 728 of 1974,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 21, 1976
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 2(B), 3, 15(1)(A), 20 - CANTONMENTS (EXTENSION OF RENT CONTROL LAWS) ACT, 1957 - SECTION 3 - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1898 - SECTION 24 - JURISDICTION OF RENT CONTROLLERS AND APPELLATE AUTHORITIES IN CANTONMENTS - DELEGATION OF POWERS BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO STATE GOVERNMENTS - VALIDITY - EXTENSION OF ACT TO CANTONMENTS - EFFECT ON NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE ACT - APPLICABILITY OF RULES FRAMED UNDER SECTION 20 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the validity of the notice by which his tenancy had been terminated and the order of ejectment passed against him by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge. The main contention was that the Central Government could not delegate the powers to appoint Rent Controllers and Appellate Authorities under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (1949 Act) to the State Governments for Cantonments situated within the State of Punjab/Haryana.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Central Government could delegate the powers to appoint Rent Controllers under Section 2(b) and Appellate Authorities under Section 15(1)(a) of the 1949 Act, for Cantonments situated within the State of Punjab/Haryana, to the State Government. 2. It was not incumbent upon the Punjab/Haryana Government to appoint Controllers and Appellate Authorities for Cantonments after the enforcement of the 1949 Act vide SRO No. 7 of 1967, to the Cantonments situated within the State of Punjab/Haryana and that the Controllers and Appellate Authorities already appointed for the State of Punjab/ Haryana under the said Act could exercise these powers.
Issues: 1. Whether the Central Government could delegate the powers to appoint Rent Controllers under Section 2(b) and Appellate Authorities under Section 15(1)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for Cantonments situated within the State of Punjab/Haryana, to the State Government? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether it was incumbent on the Punjab/Haryana Government to appoint Controllers and Appellate Authorities for Cantonments after the enforcement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, vide SRO No. 7 of 1967 to the Cantonments situated within the State of Punjab/Haryana or the Controllers and Appellate Authorities already appointed for the State of Punjab Haryana under the said Act could exercise those powers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Central Government was authorized by the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (1957 Act) to extend any law relating to the control of rents and regulation of house accommodation to the Cantonments. The Central Government, in pursuance of Section 3 of the 1957 Act, extended the 1949 Act to the Cantonments situated within the States of Punjab and Haryana, vide SRO 7 dated November 21, 1969. The Central Government had the power to extend the 1949 Act with any restriction or modification. The Central Government, by virtue of SRO 7, extended the 1949 Act as in force on the date of the notification, along with the notifications issued under it, to the Cantonments situated in the States of Punjab and Haryana. 2. The Central Government did not take away the powers of the State Governments to appoint Rent Controllers and Appellate Authorities and to frame Rules. The Central Government adopted the notifications under Sections 2(b) and 15(1)(a) for enforcing the provisions of the 1949 Act within the areas of the Cantonments situated in the States of Haryana and Punjab. The Rules framed under Section 20 of the 1949 Act became applicable to the Cantonments situated in the States of Haryana and Punjab by virtue of SRO 9 and SRO 55. The notifications issued on January 23, 1974 by which the State of Haryana had appointed Rent Controllers and Appellate Authorities for the Cantonments situated in Haryana, were surplusages.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The tenant was allowed to remain in possession for one month.
RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J.
1. Briefly the case of Smt. Savitri Devi, respondent, is that the property in dispute was owned by Dr. C. M. Paul who had given it on lease to Jag Dutta, petitioner, She purchased the property from Dr. Paul vide sale deed dated April 18, 1968. Consequently Jag Dutta became a tenant under her. She filed an application for ejectment of Jag Dutta, tenant, on the ground that he had not paid arrears of rent and that she required the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation. The application was contested by Jag Dutta. He tendered the rent on the first date of hearing which was duly accepted by the landlady. The tenant however controverted the allegation regarding her personal necessity. He further pleaded that the premises were non-residential and as such the ground of personal necessity was not available to her He also challenged the validity of the notice by which his tenancy had been terminated. The Rent Controller held that the property in dispute was a residential building and the land-lady required the same for her personal use and occupation. He further held that the tenancy had been validly terminated by the authorities. Consequently he allowed the application and ordered ejectment of the tenant. Jag Dutta went up in appeal to the District Judge, Ambala, who affirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. He came up in revision against the judgment of the District Judge, to this Court.
2. The revision petition was listed before me in Single Bench. Some questions of law were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering that the questions were of considerable importance and were likely to affect a large number of cases, I referred the following two questions to a Division Bench:
1. Whether the Central Government could delegate the powers to appoint Controllers under Section 2 (b) and Appellate Authorities under Section 15 (1) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , for Cantonments situated within the State of Punjab/Haryana to its Government?
2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether it was incumbent on the Punjab/Haryana Government to appoint Controllers and Appellate Authorities for Cantonments after the enforcement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , vide SRO No. 7 of 1967 to the Cantonments situated within the State of Punjab/Haryana or the Controllers and Appellate Authorities already appointed for the State of Punjab Haryana under the said Act could exercise those powers?
This is how the matter has been listed before us.
3 The learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing on the first question, contends that by virtue of provisions of Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 1957 Act), the Central Government could extend to any Cantonment enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which is in force in the State in which the Cantonment is situated. He argues that the Central Government has no power under Section 3 to extend the notifications by which the Rent Controllers and Appellate Authorities are appointed by the State Governments under such enactments. According to the learned counsel, it was only the Central Legislature which could constitute the Courts in the Cantonment areas for enforcement of any enactment relating to the control of rents and regulation of house accommodation. He submits that under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act), the State Government had appointed Rent Controllers and Appellate Authorities for the erstwhile State of Punjab. After extending the provisions of the 1949 Act in the Cantonments in the States of Punjab and Haryana, the Rent Controllers and Appellate Authorities appointed by the State Government started acting as such within the Cantonments, which they could not do. He urges that if th
AI
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
