A C PATEL Vs. VISHWANATH CHADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A rather interesting question relating to the competence of the State Legislature arises in this civil revision application. The landlord filed a suit, for evicting his tenant. The premises are-situated in the cantonment area of Kirkee. The trial Court held that the tenant was protected under the Rent Restriction Act (Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 57 of 1947) and dismissed the landlord's suit. In appeal the District Judge, Foona. confirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) IN revision the contention raised by Mr. Kotwal on behalf of the landlord is that the Rent Restriction Act, to the extent that it protects the tenants and creates a statutory tenancy, does not apply to the cantonment area of Kirkee. For this purpose reliance is placed on Entry 2 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act. The case was governed by Act 57 of 1947 and therefore competence of the Legislature has got to be determined by the Government of India Act and not by our Constitution. Entry 2 in List I confers upon the Central Legislature the competence to legislate with regard to (and we are only setting out the material portion) the regulation of naval, military and air foree works, local self-Government in cantonment areas, the regulation of house accommodation in such areas; and Mr. Kotwal's contention is that the Rent Restriction Act deals with regulation of house accommodation in Kirkee cantonment, and therefore it is only the Central Legislature that can legislate with regard to this subject. As against this it is pointed out that the competence of the Provincial Legislature arises under Entry 21 in List II and that entry confers upon. the Provincial Legislature the competence to legislate with regard to land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures, including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents. It is clear that although Parliament used the expression "land", "land" would include "buildings". The English Interpretation Act, 52 and 53 Vie. c. 63, enacts that whenever Parliament after the passing of the Act has used the expression "land", unless there is something to indicate a contrary intention, "land" would include "buildings". Therefore to the extent that the Provincial Legislature legislates with regard to relation of landlord and tenant, the legislation would be competent whether the legislation relates to land or to buildings. But what is urged upon us is that, even assuming that the Provincial Legislature has competence to deal with regulation of rent and protection of tenants from ejectment, the competence of the Legislature is excluded to the extent that the subject-matter falls in Entry 2 of List I. In other words, what is urged is that the Provincial Legislature could legislate for the whole Province of Bombay except for the areas which are cantonment areas.

(3.) NOW, it is perfectly true that the well established canon of construction with regard to various entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act is that these entries must not be construed in a narrow and restricted sense. They must be construed liberally and it must be assumed that Parliament intended by using a comprehensive expression to give to the Legislature all subsidiary and ancillary powers. Now the question is whether it could be said that the Rent Restriction Act, Act 57 of 1947, regulates house accommodation in cantonment areas. As the preamble of the Act sets out the Act was passed with a view to the control of rents and repairs, of certain premises, of rates of hotels and odging houses, and of evictions. Therefore, the pith and substance of Act 57 of 1947 is to regulate he relation between landlord and tenant by controlling rents which the tenant has got to pay to he landlord and by controlling the right of the landlord to evict his tenant. Can it be said that when the Provincial Legislature was dealing with these relations between landlord and tenant, it was regulating house accommodation in cantonment areas? In our opinion the regulation contemplated by Entry 2 in List J is regulation by the State or by Government. Requisitioning of property, acquiring of property, allocation of property, all that would be regulation of house accommodation, but when the Legislature merely deals with relations of landlord and tenant, it is not in any way legislating with regard to house accommodation. The house accommodation remains the same, but the tenant is protected 'quae' his landlord. It is important to note that the Act passed by the Bombay Legislature does not protect the tenant against the Central Government and it would be open to the Central Government, notwithstanding the Rent Restriction Act, to requisition or acquire any property in the cantonment area, and the tenant would have no answer against such requisition or acquisition. The legislation would only have fallen under this entry if the Provincial Legislature had attempted to protect the tenant against the State. But as we said before, the protection given to the tenant is only against his own landlord and that protection in no way interferes with any regulation that the Central Government may impose with regard to the house accommodation in the cantonment area. Therefore, in our opinion, the legislation is clearly outside the field demarcated by Entry 2 in List I.