F E DARUKHANAWALLA Vs. KHEMCHAND LALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, and it arises out of a suit filed before him for the recovery of arrears of rent, and for ejectment. The suit was filed on April 18, 1952, and the contention raised before him was that the suit was not maintainable in view of fa. 28 of the Bombay-Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which confers jurisdiction to hear rent suits upon the Civil Judges, Junior Division; and the question that the learned Judge had to consider was, whether the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act LVII of 1947, as amended by Bombay Act XLIII of 1951 applied to the premises in Question, which were situate in the cantonment area of Deolali.

(2.) MR. Desai, who has appeared before us to support the reference and the view taken by the learned Judge, viz. , that the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, LVII of 1947, does not apply to cantonment areas, has contended, that under the Constitution power to control rents with regard to properties situate in the cantonment areas is conferred upon Parliament by List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which is a Union List, and when the Legislature extended the operation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, LVII of 1947 up to March 31, 1953, by the amending Act XLIII of 1951 it trespassed upon the field reserved for Parliament, and the extension of the Act was not valid.

(3.) MR. Desai says that whatever might have been the position when Bombay Act LVII of 1947 was passed, which was passed under the Government of India Act, the position under the Constitution is different, and the legislation must be considered from the point of view, whether under the Constitution the State Legislature is competent to enact laws controlling rents in cantonment areas.