TMI Blog1973 (11) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the portion of the house on a monthly rental of ₹ 4/4 for some time. He had offered the said rent, but neither the Government nor the owner of the premises accepted the same. When subsequently the District Magistrate wanted to eject him from the house, the plaintiff, by some arrangement, became the direct tenant of the landlord. The District Magistrate by a notice dated April 21, 1955, as stated therein, cancelled the allotment order under which the plaintiff was holding the 3/8th portion of the house No. 36 and notified the plaintiff that he 'shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of the Government premises under Section 3 of the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act 1952 , (briefly the Act). Another notice was also sent to the plaintiff by the District Magistrate on October 14, 1955, calling upon him to vacate the said premises within thirty days of service of the notice failing which he would be liable to be forcibly evicted therefrom. A notice was also sent by the District Magistrate to the plaintiff under Section 12 of the Act on April 24, 1957, supersession of his earlier notice of November 24, 1956, assessing this time ₹ 1522/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the plaintiff came into possession by virtue of an allotment order before the date of the passing of the Act, the State action under the Act was invalid and Section 15 was no bar to the suit. This decision in our view cannot be sustained. 4. Section 2(c) of the original Act defines Government premises of follows :- Government premises means any premises belonging to, taken on lease or requisitioned by the State Government. It is not necessary for this case to note the definition substituted in 1956. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants points out that the U.P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952, came into force on December 19, 1952 and the claim of the defendants for compensation involved in this suit is for a period between December 15, 1949 and November 21, 1955. It may be appropriate here to quote the High Court's view in its own words : This Act cannot be made applicable to a case where the letting had been done prior to the passing of this Act. Admittedly the plaintiff came into possession by virtue of an allotment order before the date of the passing of this Act. So this Act cannot be held to be applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable to a case where letting had been done or requisition had been made or unauthorised occupation had commenced prior to the passing of the Act, clearly runs counter to the scheme and purpose of the Act. Rent will include arrears of rent. Rent is payable by agreement in advance as well as when due. Again, rent not paid when due is said to be in arrears. Sections 4 and 6 of the Act provide for the procedure for recovering the arrears of rent. Section 4 provides that where an arrear of rent is payable by any person for occupation of government premises , the competent authority may, at any time after 30 days from the date on which rent accrued due, serve upon the persons liable a notice of demand for the amount due . Section 6 provides that if the said amount is not paid to the competent authority within 30 days from the date of service of the notice of demand or such extended period as the competent authority may allow, the arrear shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The words is payable indicate that the liability to pay the arrears of rent should be outstanding on the date of the issue of demand. So a time-barred claim for arrears of rent may not be recove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abad High Court in Sripat Rai's case (supra) is also not correct. 9. We should observe that we are not called upon in this case to consider whether the Act is ultra vires or invalid on any score and also note in passing that the Act has been amended in 1970 by insertion of a new Section 15A (U.P. Act No. 30 of 1970) introducing a barring provision of a normal procedure of recovery of rent or of damages and also of eviction through civil court. 10. Now in this case what has to be considered is whether these premises were requisitioned by the Government and, if by the District Magistrate, whether they were requisitioned by him in exercise of powers validly delegated to him by the Government. The learned Counsel for the appellant was conscious of his difficulty in facing a question from the court with regard to the existence of the requisition order in this case under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules. No notification containing the order of requisition of the premises under Rule 75A had been produced before the High Court nor before us, notwithstanding opportunity offered by the Court here. With regard to the order of the so called requisition passed by the Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
