LEKH RAJ Vs. 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 2 to 5 are the landlords of house No. 1 Manam, Mohalla Lalkurti, Meerut cantonment which was occupied by the petitioner as tenant. An application was made by respondents 2 to 5 against the petitioner for release of the aforesaid house in their favour under Section 21 (1) (a) Of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act XIII of 1972) on the ground that they needed it for their own use. The application was contested by the petitioner and was dismissed by the prescribed Authority. Aggrieved by that order Respondents 2 to 5 preferred an appeal before the District Judge which Was allowed in part by the IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut, and a portion of the house aforesaid was released in favour of Respondents 2 to 5. It is this order which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) When the writ petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, it was inter alia urged by counsel for the petitioner that since the house in question is situate within the cantonment area, the provisions of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 were not applicable. For the landlord-respondents, on the other hand, relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Brij Sundar Kapoor v. 1st Addl. District Judge, Jhansi (1980 All Rent Cas 319) it was urged that U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was applicable even to a house situated within the cantonment area of Uttar Pradesh. The learned single Judge took the view that the decision in Sri Brij Sundar Kapur's case (supra) required reconsideration. He accordingly referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench;

(3.) Before dealing with the submissions made by counsel for the parties it may be pointed out that after the commencement of the Constitution the power to legislate in regard to regulation of letting rent and eviction of house accommodation in cantonment areas vests exclusively in Parliament in view of Article 246 (1) of the Constitution read with Entry III of List 1 of the VIIth Sch. thereto. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in Indu Bhusan v. Rama Sundari Debi (AIR 1970 SC 228). The Parliament in exercise of the aforesaid power enacted Uttar Pradesh Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act 10 of 1952.) In the non-cantonment areas, on the other hand, U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act III of 1947) was in force. Subsequently the Parliament enacted Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act 1957 (hereinafter referred to as Act 46 of 1957). Section 3 of Act 46 of 1957 inter alia provided : "The Central Government may by a notification in the official Gazette extend to any cantonment with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which is in force on the date of the notification in the State in which the cantonment is situated." Act 46 of 1957 was amended by the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Amendment Act (22 of 1972). Upon amendment Section 1 (2) of the principal Act declared that the principal Act would be deemed to have come in force on 26th Jan. 1950. The words "on the date of the notification" in Section 3 of the Principal Act were omitted so that under Section 3 the Central Government was to be deemed to have been empowered always to extend to a cantonment any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation in the State even as it stood before the date of the notification. Further subject to the proviso, the Central Government now enjoyed power to extend an enactment from the date earlier to the dale of the notification or from a future date. That this is the effect of the amendment, finds support from two decisions of the Supreme Court in Jai Singh Jai Ram Tyagi v. Maman Chand (AIR 1980 SC 1201) and Gur Charan Singh v. V. K. Kaushal (AIR 1980 SC 1866). Thus in Dec. 1971 Act 10 of 1952 was the enactment dealing with regulation of letting, rent and eviction of houses situate within the various cantonments in the State of Uttar Pradesh whereas in the areas outside, U. P. Act III of 1947 was applicable for this purpose. It appears that in order to have uniform legislation dealing with regulation of letting, rent and eviction of house accommodation in the whole of Uttar Pradesh subject to such modifications as may be considered necessary the Parliament enacted the Uttar Pradesh Cantonments (Control of Kent and Eviction) (Repeal) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act 68 of 1971V The purpose of this Act. as is apparent from its preamble, was "to provide for the repeal of the Uttar Pradesh Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1952." Section 2 of Act 68 of 1971 reads as follows:-