1988 (10) TMI 286 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972) to cantonments in Uttar Pradesh.
2. Exhaustion of Central Government's power under Section 3 of Act XLVI of 1957.
3. Excessive delegation of legislative powers under Section 3 of Act XLVI of 1957.
4. Validity of amendments to Act 13 of 1972 in cantonments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Act 13 of 1972 to Cantonments in Uttar Pradesh:
The primary issue was whether the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972) applied to cantonments in Uttar Pradesh. The court noted that the Central Government had issued a notification extending the provisions of Act 13 of 1972 to cantonments in Uttar Pradesh on 1-9-1973. This notification was issued under the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (Act XLVI of 1957) which allowed for such extensions.

2. Exhaustion of Central Government's Power:
The appellants argued that the Central Government's power under Section 3 of Act XLVI of 1957 was exhausted after the notification dated 3rd April 1972, which extended Act III of 1947 to cantonments in Uttar Pradesh. The court rejected this argument, stating that Act XLVI of 1957, as amended by Act 22 of 1972, allowed the Central Government to issue notifications from time to time. Therefore, the subsequent notifications dated 1-9-1973 and 17-2-1982 were valid.

3. Excessive Delegation of Legislative Powers:
The appellants contended that Section 3 of Act XLVI of 1957 amounted to excessive delegation of legislative power. The court disagreed, referencing the decision in Lachmi Narain v. Union of India, which clarified that the power to make "restrictions and modifications" does not include altering the essential features of the law. The court held that the delegation was within permissible limits as it did not allow for changes in the essential character of the law.

4. Validity of Amendments to Act 13 of 1972:
The court addressed whether amendments to Act 13 of 1972, specifically those made by Act 19 of 1974 and Act 28 of 1976, were applicable to cantonments. The notification dated 1-9-1973 extended Act 13 of 1972 as it stood on that date, but the notification dated 17-2-1982 extended the provisions of Act 13 of 1972 as amended. The court upheld the validity of the notification dated 17-2-1982, stating that it was within the Central Government's power to extend the amended provisions to cantonments. The court also referenced Section 3(4) of Act XLVI of 1957, which deemed orders made under the extended Act to be valid even if they were made before the extension.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the provisions of Act 13 of 1972, as amended, were validly extended to cantonments in Uttar Pradesh. The Central Government's power under Section 3 of Act XLVI of 1957 was not exhausted by the initial notification, and the delegation of legislative power was within permissible limits. The amendments to Act 13 of 1972 were applicable to cantonments as per the notifications issued. The court made no order as to costs.