RAMPRATAP JAIDAYAL Vs. DOMINION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a decree of ejectment passed by the learned City Civil Judge Mr. K.M. Vakil. It would appear that the defendants became tenants of flat No. 4 and garage No. 6 in a building known as "Roshera". This building was owned by a private individual. But in January 1948 the property was purchased by the Union of India. In May 1949 the Union of India served upon the defendants a notice to quit, and as the defendants failed to give possession, the suit was filed from which this appeal arises.

(2.) The defendants sought protection of the Rent Restriction Act. The answer given to that plea by the plaintiff was that under Section 4, Rent, Restriction Act, the Union Government "was exempted from the application of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the defendants could not claim the protection of the Act. This contention was accepted by the learned Judge, who in a well-considered judgment considered the various pleas advanced by the defendants and decided against them.

(3.) Before us it has been contended by Mr. Javeri in the first instance that Section 4(1) of the Act does not apply to the Union Government and that it only applies to the State Government. That section is in the following terms: "This Act shall not apply to any premises he-longing to the Govt. or a local authority or apply as against the Government to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of premises taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government; but it shall apply in respect of premises lot to the Government or a local authority'.' The short submission made by Mr. Javeri is that the expression 'the Government' as used in Section 4(1) means the State Government, and not both the State Government and the Union Government. Now, 'the Government' is not defined in the Act, nor do we find any definition of that expression in the Bombay General Clauses Act. But there is a definition given in the Central General Clauses Act and it is necessary to turn to that definition. Under Section 3 (23) 'Government' or 'the Government' is denned as including both the Central Government and any State Government; but by reason of Section 3 this definition only applies when this expression occurs in Central Acts and Regulations. But we have Section 4A which applies the definitions of certain expressions sot out in Section 3 to all Indian laws, and one of such expressions is 'Government'. Therefore, it is clear that when 'Government' occurs in any State legislation it means both the Central Government and the State Government. But what is rightly pointed out by Mr. Javeri is that Section 4A only refers to the expression 'Government' and not to the expression 'the Government', and it seems this has been done for obvious reasons. If a State legislation refers to 'the Government', ordinarily that expression would mean the Government of that particular State; it is only when the State legislation would refer to 'Government' & not 'the Government', that 'Government' in that indefinite sense would mean both the Central Government and the State Government, and, therefore, there was good reason why by Section 4A both the expressions 'Government' and 'the Government' were not made applicable to all Indian laws. Therefore, as far as the General Clauses Act stands, there is no definition of the expression 'the Government' which applies to State laws. Therefore, we must approach the subject unassisted by any definition appearing in either the All India General Clauses Act or the local Genera] Clauses Act which would help us in construing this section.