TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H. Wahi, K.K. Mohan and P.N. Puri for the appearing parties. SINGH, J. In this batch of Civil Appeals, Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions, under Article 32 of the Constitution, Validity of Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 and the Notification No. 3205- LD74/3614 dated September 24, 1974 issued thereunder by the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh, granting exemption from Section 13 of the Act to buildings constructed in the urban area of Chandigarh for a period of five years have been challenged. The appellants in the appeals as well as the petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions and Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, are tenants of buildings situate within the Urban Territory of Chandigarh. The buildings occupied by the appellants/petitioners as tenants were exempted from the operation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a period of five years under the impugned Notification dated 24.9.1974. The landlords of these buildings filed suits for eviction in the Civil Court, against the tenants. During the pendency of suits five years period expired, thereup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er allied matters relating to rent. Section 10 enjoins the landlords not to interfere with the amenities enjoyed by the tenants. Section 11 prohibits conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building except with the written permission of the Controller appointed under the Act. Section 12 mandates a landlord to make necessary repairs in the building let out to a tenant, and on his failure, it is open to the tenant to carry out repairs with the permission of the Controller and the cost thereof may be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord. Section 13 places an embargo on the landlord s right to get his tenant evicted or to obtain possession of the building. No decree for eviction against a tenant can be executed except in accordance with the provisions of the Section. A landlord seeking to evict a tenant is required to apply to the Controller appointed under the Act, and if the Controller after giving opportunity to the tenant is satisfied that the grounds set out in Section 13(2) and (3) are made out, he may make order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The remaining provisions of the Act deal with appeals, revisions, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, 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 anytime thereafter. The effect of the Notification dated January 31, 1973 was that all newly constructed buildings in the urban area of Chandigarh were granted exemption from the provisions of the Act for a period of five years. The Notification also set out the method of computing the period of five years. But the Notification dated 24th September, 1974 directed that the provisions of Section 13 of the Act shall not apply to buildings situate in the urban area of Chandigarh for a period of five years, in respect of decrees passed by civil courts in suits for ejectment of tenants, instituted during the period of exemption notwithstanding the fact that such decrees are passed during the period of exemption or at any time thereafter. The effect of the Notification is that protection granted to tenants against eviction under Section 13 of the Act is not available to them for a period of five years and if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 24.9. 1974. Most of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and petitioners are the same which have already been considered and rejected by this Court in the aforesaid cases but learned counsel made attempts to raise some additional submissions in assailing the validity of the Notification to which we shall refer at the appropriate stage. Sh. Tarkunde and other counsel appearing for the tenants in the instant cases made several submissions in challenging the validity of Section 3 of the Act and Notification dated 24th September, 1974. When the earlier decision of this Court in Punjab Tin Supply Company s case (supra) was brought to their notice where the impugned Notification itself had been held valid, the learned counsel made an effort to challenge the validity of the Notification on additional grounds. These submissions are directed against the second part of the impugned Notification which states; whether such decrees were or are passed during the period of exemption or at any time thereafter (emphasis supplied). They urged that the Notification granted exemption to newly constructed buildings from the operation of Section 13 of the Act for a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Let the papers be laid before Hon ble the Chief Justice of India for placing the matter before a larger Bench. On 23rd April, 1986, Bhagwati, C.J. (as he then was) presiding over a three-Judges Bench held that reference to a larger Bench was only in respect of suits for ejectment of tenants instituted by the landlords after the expiry of period of exemption and it did not cover cases where suits were instituted by the landlords prior to the expiry of the period of exemption although decrees were passed subsequent to the period of exemption. In this view Narendra Kumar Sharma s case wherein suit had been instituted during the period of exemption was not referred to a Constitution Bench. Another Bench consisting of Hon ble Khalid and Hon - ble Dutt, JJ. took the same view and directed that the case of Narender Kumar Sharma is not covered by the order of reference. Ultimately, Narendra Kumar Sharma s case was heard by a Bench of two Judges consisting of Hon ble Mukharji and Hon ble K.J. Shetty, JJ. and it was dismissed on merits on September 24, 1987. It appears that during the pendency of Narendra Kumar Sharma s case the tenants encouraged by the observations made in the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e argument is advanced subsequentiy was actually decided in the earlier decision, See Smt. Somavanti and Ors. v. State of Punjab Ors., [1963] 2 SCR 774; T. Govindaraja Mudaliar etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu Ors., [1973] 1 SCC 336 and Anil Kumar Neotia and Ors. v. Union of India Others, [1988] 2 SCC 587. It is therefore no longer open to the petitioner-tenants to challenge the validity of Section 3 of the Act and the impugned Notification dated 24.9.1974 on the ground that some points had not been urged or considered in Punjab Tin Supply Company s case. On the principles of res judicata, and also in view of Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by this Court in Punjab Tin Supply Company s case is binding on the petitioners. But even otherwise the submissions made on their behalf in impugning the validity of Section 3 and the Notification dated 24.9.1974 are devoid of any merit as we shall presently discuss the same. The challenge to the validity of Section 3 of the Act on the ground that it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power need not detain us long in view of a number of decisions of this Court. Similar provision contained in Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction to evict a tenant is conferred on Rent Controller or some designated authority and the statutory grounds for eviction of a tenant have been laid down. The multiple restrictions placed on the landlords right to charge rent from tenants or to evict them from buildings resulted into shortage of accommodation because those who had money and capacity to build new houses were discouraged from investing money in constructing buildings on account of the restrictions placed by rent control legislations. The Legislature stepped in, to meet the situation, in making provision for granting exemption to newly constructed buildings for certain number of years from the operation of the restrictions of the rent control legislations. These steps were taken to meet the acute scarcity of accommodation and to encourage landlords to construct buildings which would ultimately ease the situation of shortage of accommodation to a large extent. Provisions for exempting the newly constructed buildings from the restrictions of the rent control legislations for a limited period have been enacted by the Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh legislature. While considering the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of five years. While doing so, the Notification has taken care to make the exemption effective by providing that the exemption shall be available to the building even if the decree is passed after the expiry of the period of five years provided the suit is instituted during the period of exemption. The emphasis is on the institution of the suit within the period of exemption of five years. Once the landlord institutes a suit before the expiry of the period of exemption, the decree even if passed after the period of five years will not be subject to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. This is the true meaning of the Notification. The Notification does not enlarge the period of exemption instead it safeguards the rights of the parties which crystallise on the date of institution of the suit. Section 3 which provides for granting exemption from the provisions of the Act is by way of an exception to Section 13 and therefore the two provisions need not be consistent in their effect. The object of having a proviso or exemption is to neutralise the effect of the main provision. If that is not so it would not be necessary to have an exemption since public purpose as well as l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption but the decree of eviction must also be obtained within the period of five years. This Court rejected the submission saying that the contention on the very face of it, if accepted would lead to incongruity and shall nullify the purpose for which exemption was granted. The Court held that while considering the purpose of exemption of building from operation of Section 13, the Notification granting exemption must be interpreted in the light of the object and purpose of exemption and if the contention that both the suit and the decree should be passed within the period of exemption is accepted that would defeat and nullify the purpose of exemption. It is a matter of common knowledge that final disposal of suits before the civil court are time consuming in view of the heavy work load of cases and dilatory tactics adopted by the interested party. Having regard to time normally consumed for adjudication of a suit by the civil court, it is too much to expect that a suit filed within the period of exemption of five years can be disposed of finally within the period of exemption. The exemption contemplated by the Notification permits the institution of a suit within the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 39 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 protects the tenant from eviction provided the suit was pending on the date of commencement of the Act and not to a suit instituted thereafter. In the aforesaid decisions it was held that a suit for eviction instituted within period of exemption of 10 years could be decreed by the civil court even if during the pendency of the litigation 10 years period of exemption expired. The counsel for the landlords further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punja, [1988] 4 SCC 284 wherein Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 granting exemption to newly constructed building for a period of 10 years was considered. The Court held that a suit instituted within the period of exemption for eviction of the tenant, could legally be decreed even if the period of exemption expired during the pendency of the suit. These decisions no doubt support the view we are taking but we do not consider it necessary to consider these decisions in detail as the provisions of the Rent Control Legislation, which were considered in those decisions w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
