TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Act was not valid and hence, the suit filed on the basis of such a notice was not tenable. Applicability of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 to Doiwala Area - Whether or not, the notification dated 31st of March 1949 which applied the provisions of the Act of 1947 to Doiwala town was in force on the 19th of September, 1972, i.e. when the landlord terminated the tenancy and sought possession of the suit premises? - Held that: - It is clear from Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of the Act of 1947 that it extended to the whole of the erstwhile United Provinces and applied to every municipal area, cantonment area and notified area as per the provincial government notification in the official gazette. Undisputedly, the Governor declared that the provisions of Section 2, 3(a), 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 16 of the Act shall apply to Doiwala town located in Dehradun by a notification dated 31st March, 1949 because this notification has never been expressly repealed. Whether the notification dated 31st March, 1949 continued to exist even after the Act was repealed upon the reenactment of the Act of 1972? - Held that: - any statutory instrument (which a notification is) issued under the repea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emanded the possession of the shop. 3. The landlord filed the present suit for eviction on the 1st of October 1972. The Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun dismissed Small Cause Case No. 85 of 1972 with costs. The Trial Court held that even though The United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U.P. Act No. III of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947 had been repealed by the aforementioned date and replaced by a new rent act 1 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972 which was brought into force on the 15th of July, 1972, the old act applied to the suit property. 4. The Additional District Judge, Dehradun, dismissed the revision petition No. 43 of 1976 filed by the landlord. It was held that the notification by which the provisions of the old act were applicable to the Doiwala area in the year 1949 continued and remained in force on the date when the notice of termination of the tenancy was issued. Accordingly, the tenancy was protected by the Act of 1947. 5. The landlord approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by way of Writ Petition No. 25951 of 2000. This writ petition was transferred to the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 was extended from time to time and was in force when the Act of 1972 was enacted. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of Act No. III of 1947 provided as follows: Section 1... (2) It extends to the whole of the United Provinces and applies to every Municipal Area and Cantonment Area and to every Notified Area contiguous to such municipal area or cantonment area and to accommodation situated within one mile of the boundaries of any such municipal area, cantonment area and notified area , and to such other area as the Provincial Government may, from time to time, notify in the official Gazette in this behalf. (emphasis supplied) Sub-section (3) brought the Act into force on the 1st day of October, 1946. It provided as follows: (3) It shall apply to- (a) every city as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959; (b) every municipality as defined in the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916; (c) every notified area constituted under the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916; and (d) every town area constituted under the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914. Sub-Section 4, which provided for its expiry on the 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in force by virtue of Section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. 13. Thus, it was submitted that at all times, and particularly on the date when the notice was issued on the 19th of September, 1972, and the date when the suit for eviction was filed on the 1st of October, 1972, the Appellant's tenancy in the Doiwala town area was protected by the notification issued under Act No. III of 1947. The notice issued by the Respondent-landlord terminating the tenancy Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not valid and hence, the suit filed on the basis of such a notice was not tenable. Applicability of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 to Doiwala Area 14. It is clear from Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of the Act of 1947 that it extended to the whole of the erstwhile United Provinces and applied to every municipal area, cantonment area and notified area as per the provincial government notification in the official gazette. Undisputedly, the Governor declared that the provisions of Section 2, 3(a), 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 16 of the Act shall apply to Doiwala town located in Dehradun by a notification dated 31st March, 1949 because this notification has nev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47 as applied to Doiwala town by the notification dated 31st March, 1949, and the protection accorded to the tenants in the re-enacted provision of the Act of 1972, both of which regulated the eviction of tenants in the whole of Uttar Pradesh. Section 21 of the later act provided the same restrictions on the eviction of tenants on specified grounds that Section 3 (a) of the 1947 Act did. Thus, there is no inconsistency whatsoever found between the two provisions. We also, do not find any express provision to the contrary in the subsequent enactment. 20. The provisions of an Act, and a conditional legislation such as a notification, belong to a different order of things. A statutory instrument (i.e. the notification) itself does not enact the protection to the tenants. The Act of 1947 does that. The notification merely makes the enactment applicable to the Doiwala area. Apparently the purpose of the re-enacted provision is, inter alia, to protect the tenants from eviction, except on special grounds. Nothing in the Act shows that such a protection was intended to be removed from any area or for that matter, the Doiwala area. In fact, the contrary is clear from the fact that a noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th of January, 1948 extending the provisions of the Ordinance to Ratnagiri district. The aforementioned Ordinance was repealed by an Act which contained a provision empowering the State Government to issue a notification to extend the Act to any other specified area. The Act provided that the Bombay General Clauses Act would apply to the repeal as if the Ordinance were an enactment. The Respondent started constructing a cinema at Ratnagiri district on the 15th of August, 1948, after the commencement of the Act. Since the district of Ratnagiri was not specified in the Schedule to the Act, the Respondent assumed that the Act did not apply to Ratnagiri. As a result, the construction was carried out without obtaining the permission of the Controller. The High Court acquitted the Respondent, and the State preferred an appealed to this Court. This Court held that, by virtue of the repealing provision and Section 25 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 which is in pari materia with the provisions of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, the notification issued under the Ordinance continued in force under the Act (XXXI of 1948). Therefore, the provisions of the Act stood extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e simultaneous repeal of the old Act, and the making of Regulations. Often, the time lag would be considerable. Is it conceivable that any legislature, in providing that Regulations made under its statute will have effect as if enacted in the Act, could have intended by those words to say that if ever the Act is repealed and re-enacted (as is more than likely to happen sooner or later), the Regulations will have no existence for the purpose of the re-enacted statute, and thus the re-enacted statute, for some time at least, will be in many respects, a dead letter.3 27. We are in respectful agreement with the above observations. Applying the said observations to the present case, it must be held that the notification under the 1947 Act continued in spite of its repeal and the enactment of the 1972 Act. It cannot be said that in the hiatus between the repeal of the 1947 Act and the issuance of a notification applying the 1972 Act to the Doiwala area, the Legislature intended that the tenants had no protection from eviction and there was an unrestricted right to evict them. 28. This Court Construed Section 24 of the General Clauses Act 1904, in a similar way in Neel alias Niran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
