9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (9) TMI 643 - SC - Indian LawsChallenged the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller - Whether in the Union Territory of Chandigarh a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of his own use ? - HELD THAT - Shri Ashwani Chopra, learned senior counsel for the tenant has submitted that the Parliament enacted the Chandigarh Extension Act, 1974 and this Act made the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. At the time when the Parliament enacted this Chandigarh Extension Act, 1974, which was published in Gazette on 20.12.1974, factually the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 did not contain any provision whereunder a landlord could have sought eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of his own use on account of the amendment made to it by the Amendment Act, 1956 by which the words a non residential building or occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the 1949 Act had been omitted. Consequently in the Union Territory of Chandigarh a landlord has no right to seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of his own use as there exists no provision to that effect in the law applicable thereto. In our opinion, the principle of law underlying legislation by incorporation or legislation by reference has not much relevance in the present case. We do not have to examine the effect of any amendment or repeal of any enactment. Section 3 of the Chandigarh Extension Act makes the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, subject to the modification specified in the Schedule, applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh with effect form 4.11.1972. It is not a case where any specific section or provision of the 1949 Act may have been made applicable, but the provisions of the entire 1949 Act have been extended and made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It is in fact a case of extension of an Act to a territory to which it was previously not applicable. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the 1949 Act was incorporated in the Chandigarh Extension Act. The ultimate question is what is the Act . For ascertaining the meaning of the words the Act we have to refer back to Section 2, viz., the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the provisions of this 1949 Act have to be seen and examined as they stood on the date when the eviction petition was filed or till the continuance of the litigation culminating in the final judgment. On the date when the eviction petition was filed or at any stage subsequent thereto including the date when the matter was heard and is being decided by this Court, it is not possible to read the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in a manner in which it was amended by the Amendment Act, 1956 but has to be read as it originally stood which contained a provision giving right to a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant from a non residential building on the ground of his own use. This is so because in Harbilas Rai Bansal 1995 (12) TMI 404 - SUPREME COURT the provisions of the Amendment Act, 1956 were held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and were struck down. Therefore, read in any manner the inevitable consequence is that the word the Act occurring in Section 2 of the Chandigarh Extension Act has to be read as the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as it stood before the Amendment Act, 1956. The result that follows is that in the Union Territory of Chandigarh it is open to a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant from a non residential building on the ground of his own use. In the present case the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the respondent landlord bona fide needs the premises in question for his own use and this finding has been affirmed in revision by the High Court. In this view of the matter we do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. The appellant-tenant is granted six months time to vacate the premises subject to his filing the usual undertaking within one month. In Civil Appeal, we have held that under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as extended to Chandigarh by East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974, a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of his own use. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate the pleas raised in the writ petition as substantive relief has already been granted to the writ petitioner. The writ petition and the I.As. moved therein are disposed of. In all these matters the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for his own use and this finding has been affirmed in revision by the High Court. For the reasons given in Civil Appeal, there is no merit in the civil appeals and the special leave petition, which are hereby dismissed with costs. The tenants are given six months time to vacate the premises subject to their filing usual undertaking within one month.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of personal use under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974. 2. The impact of the constitutional invalidity of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956 on the applicability of the 1949 Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 3. Interpretation of the term "the Act" in the context of the Chandigarh Extension Act, 1974. 4. The relevance of the principle of legislation by incorporation versus legislation by reference in the context of the Chandigarh Extension Act, 1974. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eviction on the Ground of Personal Use: The primary submission by the appellant was that eviction on the ground of personal requirement is not provided for in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974, and its 1982 amendment. The respondent countered that a correct interpretation of the applicable provisions allows for such eviction. The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including Section 13(3)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which initially allowed eviction for personal use but was amended by the 1956 Amendment Act to exclude non-residential buildings. However, the Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal (1996) declared the 1956 Amendment Act unconstitutional, thereby restoring the original provisions allowing eviction from non-residential buildings for personal use. 2. Constitutional Invalidity of the 1956 Amendment Act: The 1956 Amendment Act was found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and was struck down by the Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal. The Court held that any law made in contravention of Part III of the Constitution is a stillborn law and void from inception. Therefore, the provisions of the 1956 Amendment Act, which deleted the words "non-residential building" from Section 13(3)(a)(ii), could not be considered part of the law applicable to Chandigarh. 3. Interpretation of "the Act" in the Chandigarh Extension Act, 1974: Section 2 of the Chandigarh Extension Act defines "the Act" as the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as it was in force before November 1, 1966. Section 3 extends this Act to Chandigarh with effect from November 4, 1972. The Court concluded that since the 1956 Amendment Act was unconstitutional and void, the 1949 Act as it stood before the amendment applied to Chandigarh. This interpretation means that the original provisions allowing eviction for personal use of non-residential buildings were applicable. 4. Legislation by Incorporation vs. Legislation by Reference: The appellant argued that the 1949 Act, as amended by the 1956 Amendment Act, was incorporated into the Chandigarh Extension Act, 1974. The Court, however, clarified that the Chandigarh Extension Act merely extended the 1949 Act to Chandigarh and did not incorporate the 1956 amendments. The principle of legislation by incorporation, which suggests that incorporated provisions become part of the new Act, was deemed inapplicable. The Court emphasized that the 1949 Act was extended to Chandigarh as it originally stood, without the unconstitutional amendments. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order, affirming that under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as extended to Chandigarh, a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of personal use. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appellant-tenant was granted six months to vacate the premises. The writ petition and related civil appeals were disposed of in line with this judgment.
|
