TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Bagga. OTHERS For The Respondents: R.P. Jagga, S.C. Manchanda, P.R. Mridul, Harbanslal and P.A.Francis., R.P. Jagga, Miss Kailash Mehta, Vimal Dave, A. Minocha, others VENKATARAMIAH, J. In these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of the Home Department Notification No. 352-LD-73/602 dated January 31, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Notification ) as modified by the Home Department Notification No. 2294-LD-73/3474 dated September 24, 1973 and the Home Department Notification No. 3205-LD- 74/3614 dated September 24, 1974 issued by the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Chandigarh under section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) exempting every building constructed in the urban area of Chandigarh for a period of five years from the respective date applicable to it from the operation of the Act and issuing certain other directions in that behalf. Incidentally the petitioners have also questioned the validity of section 3 of the Act. For a proper appreciation of the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court quashed the said notification by its judgment dated October 9, 1974 holding that the Act had not been effectively brought into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh by virtue of that notification (vide Dr. Harkishan Singh v. Union of India Ors).(1) It is not necessary to deal with the reasons given by the High Court in support of its judgment since the legal infirmities pointed out by the High Court were set right by the Parliament by the enactment of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension of Chandigarh) Act, 1974 (Act 54 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Extension Act ) the relevant part of which reads as follows: 1. This Act may be called the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974. 2. In this Act, The Act means the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as it extended to, and was in force, in certain areas in the pre-reorganisation State of Punjab (being areas which were administered by municipal committees, cantonment boards, town committees or notified area committees or area notified as urban areas for the purposes of that Act) immediatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect, only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule . Thereafter in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Act the Chief Commissioner published a notification dated January 31, 1973 exempting the buildings referred to therein from the operation of the Act. It reads:- No. 352-LD-73/602 dated January 31, 1973. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Punjab Act No. III of 1949), as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, is pleased to direct that the provisions of the said Act shall not apply to buildings, constructed in the urban area of Chandigarh, for a period of five years w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh is pleased to direct that the provisions of Section 13 of the said Act shall not apply to buildings, exempted from the provisions of the Act for a period of five years vide Chandigarh Administration Notification No. 352-LD-73/602 dated the 31st January, 1973 in respect of decrees passed by Civil Courts in suits for ejectment of tenants in possession of these buildings instituted by the landlords against such tenants during the period of exemption whether such decrees were or are passed during the period of exemption or at any time thereafter. The Extension Act merely brought into force with effect from November 4, 1972, the Act which was an Act in force in the former State of Punjab with the modifications set out in its Schedule in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and validated all actions taken, notifications issued and orders made or purported to have been taken issued or made under the Act. Having done that it withdrew from the scene. Thereafter the Act as modified by the Extension Act alone has to be looked into to conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Control Act, 1961 (41 of 1961) which read as: The Government may, by notification exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act any accommodation which is owned by any educational religious or charitable institution or by any nursing or maternity home, the whole of the income derived from which is utilised for that institution or nursing home or maternity home. while deciding the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanhaiyalal.(2) In fact the very section i.e. section 3 of the Act has been held by this Court not to suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power (See Sadhu Singh v. The District Board, Gurdaspur Anr.(3) It is also held in that case that section 3 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This contention, therefore, fails. The next contention is that the exemption granted by the notification in these cases being outside the scope of the object and policy of the Act and at the same time discriminatory is liable to be struck down. The argument proceeds on the assumption that the policy and object of an Act can be gathered only from its preamble and the provisions contained therein and that in the instant case since the pream ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstructed may after the expiry of the period of exemption be available for the pool of housing accommodation controlled by the Act. The impugned notification is not, therefore, ultra vires section 3 of the Act as in its true effect, it advances the scheme, object and purposes of the Act which are articulated in the preamble and the substantive provisions of the Act. Moreover the classification of buildings into exempted buildings and unexempted buildings brought about by the notification bears a just and reasonable nexus to the object to be achieved namely the creation of additional housing accommodation to meet the growing needs of persons who have no accommodation to reside or to carry on business and it cannot be considered as discriminatory or arbitrary or unreasonable in view of the shortness of the period of exemption available in the case of each exempted building. The exemption granted for a period of five years only serves as an incentive as stated above and does not create a class of landlords who are for ever kept outside the scope of the Act. The notification tries to balance the interests of the landlords on the one hand and of the tenants on the other in a reasonable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief Commissioner to issue the notifications referred to above. In Uttam Bala Ravankar v. Asstt. Collector of Customs Central Excise, Goa Anr.(1) this Court has applied section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act to uphold a notification issued by the Lt. Governor of Goa, Daman and Diu (the administrator of the Union Territory) where the power to issue it was exercisable by the Central Government. Moreover section 4 of the Extension Act clearly validates the notifications which had been issued or purported to have been issued under the Act before the date of the Extension Act by declaring that they shall be deemed to valid and effective. We do not, therefore, find any merit in this contention too. We shall next deal with the question whether the notification issued under section 3 of the Act has retrospective effect. This question affects those buildings which were constructed in the sense that they satisfied the criteria applicable to them prior to the issue of the notification. It is urged on behalf of the tenants of such buildings that the notification is only prospective in its operation and the benefit of the exemption accorded by it cannot be claimed by the landlords of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a delegate of the Legislature. It is to be noted that there is no dispute that as soon as the Act came into force on November 4, 1972 all the buildings which had been constructed prior to that date came within the scope of the Act. The Act also applied to all the buildings which were constructed thereafter and before January 31, 1973 on which date the notification was issued. The point for consideration is whether on the issue of the notification on January 31, 1973 any such building to which the Act already applied was taken out of the operation of the Act. A reading of the notification does not clearly indicate that the Chief Commissioner intended to grant exemption in respect of any of the buildings constructed prior to January 31, 1973. While the words buildings constructed in the urban area of Chandigarh for a period of five years with effect from the date the sewerage connection is granted which are found in the notification refer to all the buildings to which sewerage connection is granted after the date of the notification, they do not necessarily mean and include buildings which had been given sewerage connection within five years prior to that date. There was also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies to the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3573 of 1979 (Suresh Chand v. Gulam Chisti) which was disposed of by the same judgment, a review of the above judgment has been granted and by an order made on October 7, 1983 the case is directed to be reheard. Moreover on the construction of the above provision, there are two earlier decisions-one in Ratan Lal Shinghal v. Smt. Murti Devi(1) decided on August 21, 1979 in which it is held that the said provision has no retrospective effect but is only prospective in operation and another in Shri Ram Saroop Rai v. Smt. Lilavati(2) decided on May 7, 1980 in which a contrary view is taken. Section 2 of the said U.P. Act requires to be considered in the setting in which it appears. We are of the view that any decision on that provision has to be confined to that provision and cannot be extended to the present case by analogy. There is one other distinction which is sought to be made between an exemption granted by a notification which is issued by a delegate of the Legislature who is not given power by the Legislature to issue a notification having retrospective effect and an exemption granted by the Legislature itself on the basis of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
