Firms Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand

P. Jagamnoban Reddy, . .J. The respondent who was construct-ing·~ buildjng, had leased it out on a monthly tenancy to the appellant on the 1st November 1959. The building was uhi-mately complejed in March 1960. On 14-1-1963 he filed a suit an.d .I!:Ot a decree for ejectment on 14-8-196~. On 29-8-1969 he filed an .execQ~ion petition but the executing court dismissed it on 16-4-1970 on the ground that the conditions .Prescribed in th•.! notification of the Government of Punjab under section 3 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (hereinafter called the Act') dated ~0-7 -1965, exempting such decrees from sect ion 13 of the said Act were not complied with. An appea~ aszJin'1t this iudgment was unsuccessful. On a second appeal 'the ·High Court held tha1 th·~ decree was executable inasmuch as that decree was exempted, under the notification. _This appeal is by special leave against th.at judgment..

Before we notice the conditions prescribed for the exemt>tlon of decrees of eviction against tenants from the provisions of the Act, it is necessary to refer to section l3 of the Act in so far a5 it is relevant and •the notification exe1npting decrees obtai~d by certain categories of landlords from tho,se provisions. IL is well· known that due to the non·availability of housing accpn:ul)Odation in urban areas and the consequent hardship to tenants who were already occupying buildings on lease, almost all'the States enacted legislation by and under which the landlords' rights to evict tt.!nants as well as the ri,ght to recover higher exorbitant rents were considerably cut down. The main scheme of these Act~ genera1!y was to make i't obligatory on landlords intending to eviot tenants to make applications before the authority prescri~d UJlder the Act only on the grounds specified in the particular le~islation, the Rent Control Authority alone could make an enquiry and order eviction. The jurisdiction of the civil courts was t~en away. In some of the States, such as in .Uttar Pradesh, civil courts were allowed to entertain eviotion suits but subject· to prior leave being obtain from the District Magistrate. ln other words, in that State two rounds of litigation were provided for. Simila.d:y, aexmcations for fixation of fair rent where the rent charged was considered to be exorbitant. could also be made be· fore these authorities. These restriotions could not, however, serve as a panacea for solvin~ the accommodation problem in urban cities consequent on tht ptrenoroenal migration of popula-tion into thos~ areas which was further aggravated by large scale exodUs due to the partition of India. It, therefore, became neces-sary for each of the State Governments not only to undertake buildin~ schemes itself but also to encourage persons who had the means to build by exempting newly constructed buildiug which were let out to tenants from rent control restrictions for a parti-cular period. One of such lep;islations is the Act with which we are now concerned. Unlike other Rent Control legislations, this Act adopts r:ather a novel method, in that while it pern1Hs suits beinp; filed and decrees obtained, it places restrictions against their execution except on specified grounds.. In this case, however, we are not concerned with the novelty of the 1egislation or the bard-ship, expense and delay which is caused to the ·landlord or the tenant by the innovation. adopted by i't. We may now reaGl the relevant provi~jons of section 13 which are as under :- I " 13 ( 1) . A tenant in possession of a · bu'ildinJ?, or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy. except in accordance with the provisions of this section, or in pursuance of an order made under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1947, as subsequently amendttd.

(2_). A landlord who seeks te> evict his tenant-shall apply to .the Controller f-or a dire:ction in that behalf.

If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied-

( here the grounds upon which. he should be satisfied· have b~n set Qut) th"! ~ontroller may. make an order oo directinJ?;' the tenant to. f>;'t the landlord' in J)OSSeSSion. the building or FIRM AMAR NATH v., TBK CHAND (Jaganmohan Reddy,/.) 92S

rented land and if the Conrtroller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application : ·

Provided that the ContfQiler may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possio.n of the building or rented land and may exttend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggre- ~ate.

(3) (_a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the ten~nt to put the landlord in possession-

( The 2rounds on which he can apply have been set out)

(b) The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide make an order direct~ ing the tenant to_ put the landlord in possession of the ·building or rented land on such date as may be speci~ fied by tq~ Controller and if othe Controller is not s~ satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the applica~ tion :

(c) x X X X X · Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate.

(4) X X X X X

(5) X X X X x" The Government tinder sectio.n 3 has been empowered to direct that. all· or any of the provisions of the Act shall nor apply to any particular building or rented land ot any class of building or rented lands. Pursua~t to this power,; the State. Government was notifyin,g ex~mptions. from time to ~e during a· period of 2,0 years, the :first notification it appears having been issued on the 8th March 1951 which exemp!P..,d buildings constructed in 1951 and 1952 from the provisions of the Act for a period of S years with effect from the date of completion of any such build ing. Thereafter followed . several notifications which exempted buildings · constructed in each of the years after 19$2. The notification with which we are now concerned was issued on 30-7-1965 and is in the following terms·:.:.._:_ ·

· ·" . . . . In exercise of the powers conferred by .&ec~ tion 3 of the Punjab· Urban Re.nt Restri~~ion Act 19.4~ and aU other powers· enablin~ hi.m: · in this ·behalf, tho . ' 13-L1061 Sup. C I/72

• 926 SUPREME .CQVRT REPORTS . [1972] 3 s.s.R.

Goyerrlor of Punjab is pleased to direct that the provi· sions· of section 13 of the said Act shall not apply .in respect of decrees for e.iectment of tenants in possession of building which satisfy the following conditions, namely:- · ·

(a) B~ildings constructed during the years 1959,

.1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 are exempted from all the provisions .of the said Act for a period of five years to be calculated from the dates of their completion. and (b) During the aforesaid period of exemption suit~

for eiectment of tenants in possession of 'those buildings were or are instituted in civi} t:ourts by the landlords against the tenants and decrees of ejectment were or are passed".

Under the above notification, the provisions of section 13 are made inapplicable to decrees in respect of buildings constructed during the years specified in (a) for a period of 5 years to be cal· culated from the dates of their completion provided during the said period ~uits had been institU'ted by the landlords against the tenants. There is no doubt, from the facts set out above, the building in respect of which exemption from the application of section 13 is being claimed, was comple'ted in March 1960 and a suit had also been filed on 14th January 1963 before the ex~ picy of the period of 5 years from that date. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the decree in that suit having been passed on 14th August 1969 after the period of 5 years from the date of construction, the exemption from the res-trictions placed by section 13 will not be available, because ac-cording to him not only the suit should-be filed but the decree for eviction should be obtained within the said period of 5 years. This m: conten1ion on the very face of it would lead to incongruity

would, if accepted, have the effect of nullifying the very pur-pose for which the exemption was being given. We were re-minded wit)J a somewhat emphatic assertion what appears to us to b;e unexceptional that the Courts are not concerned with J:he policy, of the legislature or with the result, whether injurious of otherwise, by giving effect to the language used nor is it the func~ tion of the Court where the meaning is .clear not to give effeot to it merely because it would lead to hardship. It cannot, however, be gainsaid that one of the duties imposed on the Courts in inter-preting a particular provision of law. rule or notification is to ascertain the meaning and intendment of t.hte legislature or of 'the delegate, which in exercise of the powers conferred ori it; has made the rule or notification in question. In doing so, we must always presume that rthe impugned provision was designed to effectlfate a particular object or tb 'il)eet a particular ·requirement and not that it was· intended tt6 negative that which· it sought to achieve. It is clear to that the Government intended to grant cer-tain i.ti.ducements J)ersons who had ·the · means ·to · construct buildings by exempting any such . building so constructed tor a period o~ 5 years. . The period of 5 ye~rs. could commence from the date of construction or from some other date. Initially, as the earlier notifications would show,. that exemption was of 5 years was given from the d:ate when the building constructed but by ·the impugned notification it was intend.ed to confer the benefrt by giving exemption of 5 years from a subsequent datr.!, namely, the date of the institution of a suit, provided it was · instituted within a period of 5 years from the date of the eonstruction of the building. A closer reading of the notification would show that. it was intended to clarify and provide a workable solution in respect of building constructed in 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963. These buildings had already b~en exempted from the pro-visions of section 13 by two earlier notifications, the first one in 1960 givin,g exemption upto 31-12-1963 and the se~ond. iq 1963 for 5 years from the date of completion of the building. It is clear from the language of the notification that ,what is exempted is . the decree for ejectment of a tenant from ihe applicartion of se£:tion 13. The very purpose of exemption of buildings from the operation of s.ection 13 was to ,give landlords the rights which a~ owners of buildings they had under the ordinary law, namely, to give them on lease at rents which they thought were remunerative and to evict tenants during th1tf period without any fetters imposed . by the Act. If no provision was made for exempting such decree:; in respect of the exempted buildings, the exemption granted will be illusory, Clause (b), therelore, provided for the time during which th~ suit in which the. decree has been passed should be J! filed. The decrees pasSed in such suits will be executable free

from the fetters imposed by section.13 of the Act. It is obvious that the ·filin,g of a suit by itself does not confer any exemption be-cause what is exempted from the provisions of seotion 13 is the decree; A suit filed, 'therefore, must end in a decree though that decree may be passed subsequent to the expiry· of the 5 years' period during .~hich exemption from the application of section 13 has been granted. ·

The leamed Advoca1e for the respondent has suggested 3 construction which is consistent witfu our reading of th·~ notifica-tion and that is that the. words 'were' or 'are' used in clause (b) both in respect of the filing of the suits and tthe passing of the ·H decrees would indicate that 'these suits should have been filed or

are hereafter to be filed and likewise decrees of ejectment had been passed or are hereafter to be passed. In other words, the suns must have been already filed during the period of e~mption or are to be instituted during such period. This language had to be used because 'the 5 years' exemption in respect of the build-ings constructed in 1959 would end in 1964 while the notifica-tion was issued in 1965. There is no question of suits being filed in respect of these buildings hereafter, as such decrees in suits filed before 1964 would be exempted. In respect of ·the build-ings constructed in 1960, !there would be ·some buildings in res-pect of which the five years' exemption period would have expired before the notification and, therefore. the suits in respect of such buildings during the relevant period in ·1960 should have b.een. filed before that period expired and where the exemption expires after the notification, suits could be filed thereafter but before the exemption exnires. In respect of 1961, 1962 and 1963 there is of course no difficulty because there is sufficient period for filing suits if they had not been filed by the time the notification was. issued. Taking the typical case of a building constructed in 1961, the period of 5 ·years' exemption would expire in 1966 and under the first part of clause (b) it would be open to the lap.dlord to file a suit for ejectment even on the last day of 'the expiry of the 5 years' exemption. If so, it would be absurd to postulate that a decree would be 11;iven immediate~y thereafter, as th~t me would be the result, if the contention that both the suit and decree should be passed within rthe period of exemption, is accepted. This could not have been th.e intention of the Oovemment in publish-ing the notification under section 3.

It ~ was

is clear to our minds, as it to the High Court that under clause (b) the filing of the suit within th~ period of exemp-tion is the only condition that is necessary tp sa~~fy one of the requirements of the exemption, the other requirement being the passing of the decree in respect of which no time has been pres-cribed. If the decree, as contended ·by the learned Advocate for the appellant, has to be obtained withirl the period of 5 years, there was no need to specify that the .suit had to be filed ·wiihin that period because the exemption from the requ~rements of sec-tion 13 is only in respect of the decree and not the ~uit There w~s. therefore, no need to mentiotl about the time of the filing of the suit.

In the view we have taken, the construction placed by the High Court is the only construction '!hat is possible on the langu-age of the notification. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 1052 of 1971.

Apeeal by special lea~e from the judgm~n.t and or?er dated May 27, 1971 of.the PunJab and Haryana Htgh Court m·Execu· tion Second Appeal No. 1783 of 1970. ·

M. C. Chag'la, V. C. Mahajan, S. K. Mehta ~ K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, for the appellant.

M. C. Setalvad, 0. c. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent.

The Judgment of 'the Court was delivered by