9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Sessions Judge and High Court under Sections 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Interpretation of Section 259 of the Cantonments Act regarding the recovery of arrears of rent. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Sessions Judge and High Court under Sections 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The appellant argued that the magistrate, acting under Section 259 of the Cantonments Act, is a persona designata, and therefore, his order is not revisable under Sections 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Judge and the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with that order under these provisions. However, this point was not raised before the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Court noted that although a question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, it decided not to permit the appellant to raise this point at this late stage. The Court opined that even if the High Court might not have jurisdiction under Sections 435/439, it could interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the appellant's contention was not allowed. 2. Interpretation of Section 259 of the Cantonments Act regarding the recovery of arrears of rent: The primary question was whether arrears of rent due under a lease could be recovered under Section 259 of the Cantonments Act. The relevant part of Section 259 reads: "Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in this Act, arrears of any tax, rent on land and buildings and any other money recoverable by a Board or a Military Estate Officer under this Act or the rules made thereunder may be recovered..." The Court examined whether "rent on land and buildings" is governed by "recoverable by a Board or a Military Estates Officer under this Act or the rules made thereunder." It concluded that rent on land and buildings could only be recovered under Section 259 if such rent is claimable by a Board under the Act or the rules. The Court referred to previous decisions, including Banarsi Das v. Cantonment Authority Ambala Cantonment, which supported this view. The appellant argued that the Board's power to claim rent under the Act and the Rules should allow for recovery under Section 259. However, the Court noted that the right to claim rent arises from the lease, not directly from the Act or the Rules. Therefore, Section 259(1) cannot be applied to a simple case of money due to the Board on a contract of lease. The Court acknowledged that Section 257 of the Act provides an example where the Board can claim rent from a tenant of an owner under specific circumstances. However, for general leases between the Board and a tenant, Section 259 does not apply. The Court also addressed the appellant's concern that the Board would be unable to recover rent by suit if Section 259 were interpreted narrowly. The Court clarified that the section does not bar the Board from recovering rent by suit under the general law of the land. The provision for recovery by suit in Section 259 is an alternative method and does not affect the Board's right to recover rent through general legal means. In conclusion, the Court agreed with the High Court that the rent in this case was not claimable by the Board under the Act or the Rules but only under the lease. Therefore, Section 259(1) does not apply to the recovery of such rent by application to a magistrate. Separate Judgment: Mudholkar, J., delivered a separate judgment agreeing with the appellant's interpretation of Section 259. He argued that the section should be construed liberally and not narrowly, allowing the Board to recover rent due under a lease. However, the majority opinion prevailed, and the appeal was dismissed. Order by Court: In accordance with the majority opinion, the appeal was dismissed.
|
