TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of laws coupled with faulty legislation, using inappropriate language, a stress is created which the courts through its judicial interpretations have been attempting to simplify it. In spite of this the hope for an early adjudication has been eluding like a mirage. With the advancement of legal studies there is sharpening of the acumen of advocacy. Every word of a statute, if interpreted when equipped with such dynamism, could be intellectually misused, hence interpreters including counsel, has to keep balance not to let this misuse surface. As knife in the hand of a murderer and doctor has different roles to play, so the interpreters have to select to play the role of a doctor to confer benefit to the subject. The words in a statute are dynamic, not static, hence has to be interpreted to subserve to the objectives of an Act. Such Judicial discipline in interpreting has to be followed for yielding legislative intent. Similarly judicial culture has to be cultivated even by counsels appearing for a cause, who has to see that the judicial system does not rust or get stains for a delayed justice. To win a battle for a client is the legitimate expectation of all but in doing so delib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid Act. Thereafter the landlord sent a notice on 11.9.1991 terminating the tenancy of the appellant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On 18.11.1991 landlord filed a suit for recovery of possession in the Delhi High Court in its original side which is registered as suit No. 390/1995. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Additional Rent Controller that the landlord has already filed a suit appellant prayed that this eviction petition be dismissed or in the alternative its proceedings be stayed. However, the Rent Controller rejected such a request by his order dated 23.11.1992 relying on the ratio of D.C. Bhatia Ors. vs. Union of India Anr. 56 (1994) DLT 324. Thereafter in the suit the appellant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as parallel proceedings cannot be continued both before the Rent Controller and the Civil Court. The Trial Court on 18.10.1997 rejected appellants aforesaid application. Aggrieved by that the appellant filed revision before the High Court. As aforesaid, in the meanwhile the appellant moved an application before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 9 read with Section 151 CP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it even after the said amendment. Submission for tenant is, since tenant has no vested right on the date when amendment came into force and amendment is not retrospective in operation hence it is only the Civil Court which would have jurisdiction. On the other hand submission on behalf of the landlord is, even if it could be said tenant has no vested right, landlord has vested right under the Rent Act and further in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the pending proceedings would continue before the Rent Controller as if the amending provision has not come into play. Further it is submitted, Section 6 spells out, where this Act or any Central Act repeals any enactment then unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege accrued or incurred under any such enactment so repealed. Since landlord in addition to his vested right under the Rent Act, by virtue of this Section 6 has in any case right under the repealing provision hence the pending proceeding would continue, as there is nothing in the amending Act showing any different intention. So the case of tenant-appellant is that amendment covers pending cases while respondent landlord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Amending Act the legislature has withdrawn the protection hitherto enjoyed by the tenants who were paying ₹ 3500 or above as monthly rent. If the tenants were sought to be evicted prior to the amendment of the Act, they could have taken advantage of the provisions of the Act to resist such eviction by the landlord. But this was nothing more than a right to take advantage of the enactment. The tenant enjoyed statutory protection as long as the statute remained in force and was applicable to him. If the statute ceases to be operative, the tenant cannot claim to continue to have the old statutory protection. In the instant case, the legislature has decided to curtail or take away the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act from a section of the tenants. The tenants had not acquired any vested right under the Delhi Rent Control Act, but had a right to take advantage of the provisions of the repealed Act so long as that law remained in force. In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to uphold the contention that the tenants had acquired a vested right in the properties occupied by them under the statute. [Emphasis supplied] Thus this case holds that the tenant under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the landlords normal right to evict the tenant from the premises was not interfered with for the first ten years of the construction of the premises by an exemption specifically incorporated in the protective rent legislation in question. The normal right was obviously the vested right under the general and once accrued it continued to operate. The protection given to the tenant by the rent legislation came into operation after the expiry of the period of ten years. Hence, notwithstanding the coming into operation of the protection and in the absence of the provisions to the contrary, the proceedings already commenced on the basis of the vested right could not be defeated by mere passage of time consumed by the said proceedings. It is for this reasons that the Court there held that the right which had accrued to the landlord being a vested right could not be denied to him by the efflux of time. The aforesaid decision holds that tenants have no vested right under the Rent act. In effect, the law is well settled. Prior to the enactment of the Rent Act the relationship between the landlord and the tenant is governed by the general law, may be Transfer of Property Act or any oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntroller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:- (a) that the tenant has neither paid or tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1992 (4 of 1882); (b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1942, sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord; (c) that the tenant has used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let (i) if the premises have been let on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord; or (ii) if the premises have been let before the said date without obtaining his consent; (d) that the premises were let for use as a residence and neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out any building work at the instance of the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in pursuance of any improvement scheme or development scheme and that such building work cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. Under Clause (a) landlord could evict a tenant if he defaults in the payment of rent. Under Clause (b) if he sublets the premises in question, under Clause (c) if he uses the premises other than that for which it was let, under Clause (d) if he or any member of his family is not residing therein for a period of 6 months, under (e) premises is bonafide required by landlord, under (f) premises is unfit for human habitation, under (g) premises is required for rebuilding, under (h) he has acquired an alternative accommodation, under (hh) he built residence and 10 years have expired after 1988 amending Act, under (i) he has ceased to be in service of the landlord, under (j) he caused substantial damage to the property, under (k) he has used the premises contrary to the condition of lease given by the Government or local bodies to the landlord, and under (l) where the landlord is required to carry out any cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. The opening words of Section 6 specify the field over which it is operative. It is operative over all the enactment under the General Clauses Act, Central Act or Regulations made after the commencement of General Clauses Act. It also clarifies in case of repeal of any provision under the aforesaid Act or regulation, unless a different intention appears from such repeal, it would have no affect over the matters covered in its sub-clauses, viz., (a) to (e). It clearly specifies that the repeal shall not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad Haji Dada Trust (1974) 2 SCC 484) held, inter alia, that the right of a landlord to recover possession on the ground that the tenant has sub-let the premises is not an accrued right within the meaning of section 51 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, (57 of 1947). But the landlord had the legal freedom as against the tenants to terminate the tenancy or not. The tenants had no right or claim that the landlord should not terminate the tenancy and the landlord is therefore the privilege of terminating it on the ground that tenant has sub-let the premises. This privilege would survive the repeal. In para 16 of the judgment this Court summed up the position as follows: Under the Transfer of Property Act, mere sub-letting, by a tenant, unless the contract of tenancy so provides, is no ground for terminating the tenancy. Under that Act a landlord cannot terminate a tenancy on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises unless the contract of tenancy prohibits him from doing so. The respondent- landlord therefore could not have issued a notice under any of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act to determine the tenancy, as the contract o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and others (1980) 1 SCC 149 may be seen. Para 15 of the judgment which is relevant is quoted hereunder: The distinction between what is, and what is not a right preserved by the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is often one of great fineness. What is unaffected by the repeal of a statute is a right acquired or accrued under it and not a mere hope or expectation of, or liberty to apply for, acquiring a right. In Director of Public Works v. Ho Po Sang Lord Morris speaking for the Privy Council, observed: It may be, therefore, that under some repealed enactment, a right has been given but that, in respect of it, some investigation or legal proceeding is necessary. The right is then unaffected and preserved. It will be preserved even if a process of quantification is necessary. But there is a manifest distinction between an investigation in respect of a right and an investigation which is to decide whether some right should be or should not be given. On a repeal, the former is preserved by the Interpretation Act. The latter is not. (Emphasis supplied) It must be mentioned that the object of Section 31(2)(i) is to preserve only the things done and action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht. In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City-1 vs. Godavari Sagar Mills Ltd. 1967 (1) SCR this Court observed: We proceed to consider the next contention of the appellant that s.13 of the 1949 Act repealed the Ordinance completely and the effect of this section was that the Ordinance was obliterated from the Statute Book as if it never existed and, therefore, there was no bar in the way of the Income-tax Officer to make the order on March 11, 1955. Mr. S.T. Desai is not right in his contention that the effect of s.13 of the 1949 Act is to obliterate the Ordinance completely from the Statute Book. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (Act 10 of 1897) states as follows: 6. Whereas this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not - (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and for the reason given by this Court in that case the provisions of s. 6 (c), (d) and (e) of the General Clauses Act are applicable to this case since there is no contrary intention appearing in the repealing statute. In M.S. Shivananda vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 149, this Court observed: If, however, the right created by the statute is of an enduring character and has vested in the person, that right cannot be taken away because the statute by which it was created has expired. In order to ascertain whether the rights and liabilities under the repealed Ordinance have been put an end to by the Act, the line of enquiry would be not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities under the repealed Ordinance but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them. Another line of approach may be to see as to how far the new Act is retrospective in operation. Thus we find Section 6 of the General Clauses Act covers wider field and saves wide range of proceedings referred to in its various sub-clauses. We find two sets of cases, one where Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is applicable and other w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
