1969 (4) TMI 101 - SC - Indian Laws

whether the power of legislating on relationship between landlord and tenant in respect of house accommodation or buildings would -appropriately fall in Entry 21 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India 3SupCI69- 15 Act, 1935, or in the corresponding Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution? Held that - The power of the State Legislature to legislate in respect of landlord and tenant of buildings is to be found in Entries 6, 7 and 13 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and not in Entry 18 of List 11, and that that power was circumscribed by the exclusive power of Parliament to legislate on the same subject under Entry 3 of List I. Appeal dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of State Legislature to extend the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act to cantonment areas.
2. Interpretation of "regulation of house accommodation" under Entry 3 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
3. Scope of Parliament's power to legislate on house accommodation in cantonment areas.
4. Conflict between legislative powers of Parliament and State Legislatures under different entries of the Seventh Schedule.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of State Legislature to extend the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act to cantonment areas:
The respondent argued that the extension of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act to the cantonment area by the State Government was ultra vires and void. The High Court held that the notification extending the Act to the Barrackpore cantonment area was indeed ultra vires. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the regulation of house accommodation in cantonment areas falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of Parliament as per Entry 3 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

2. Interpretation of "regulation of house accommodation" under Entry 3 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution:
The appellant contended that "regulation of house accommodation" should be narrowly interpreted to only include accommodation required for military purposes. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, stating that the language of Entry 3 does not contain any qualifying words to restrict it to military purposes. The Court clarified that the power to regulate house accommodation includes all aspects of control, including who can occupy the accommodation, under what terms, and for how long.

3. Scope of Parliament's power to legislate on house accommodation in cantonment areas:
The appellant argued that even if "regulation of house accommodation" includes private occupation, it should not extend to legislating for the eviction of tenants. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the term "regulation" encompasses all aspects of control, including termination of tenancies and eviction. The Court referenced the dictionary meaning of "regulation" and historical legislative practices to support this broad interpretation. The Court also noted that effective rent control legislation inherently includes provisions for eviction of tenants.

4. Conflict between legislative powers of Parliament and State Legislatures under different entries of the Seventh Schedule:
The appellant cited previous High Court decisions to argue that the power to legislate on the relationship between landlord and tenant falls under State jurisdiction. The Supreme Court acknowledged these decisions but emphasized that Entry 3 of List I grants Parliament exclusive power to legislate on house accommodation in cantonment areas, overriding State powers under Entries 6, 7, and 13 of List III and Entry 18 of List II. The Court highlighted that the Constitution allows for such exclusions and that similar exclusions exist in other legislative areas.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the State Legislature's extension of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act to the cantonment area was ultra vires. The Court clarified that Parliament has exclusive authority to regulate house accommodation in cantonment areas, including the control of rents and eviction of tenants. The appeal was dismissed with costs payable to the plaintiff respondent.

← Previous Next →