S BIKSHAPATHI Vs. N LAKSHMANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dt. 19-4-82 in R. A. No. 85/1977 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order of eviction of the revision petitioner passed by the Court of the Rent Controller, Secunderabad in R. C. No. 279/ 1975. Both the Courts have given a concurrent finding that the petitione herein has committed wilful default in payment of rents and was, therefore, liable to be evicted from the suit mulgi. The plea of the petitioner tenant that he effected repairs to the premises was turned down and it was held that he had no right to withhold the payment of rents on the pretext of of fecting repairs. He was held to be a chronic defaulter in payment of rents for the period from 1-5-1974 to 31-5 1975. A perusal of the order of the lower Appellate Court reveals that the claim of the petitioner that he has incurred this expenditure for effecting repairs to the premises has not been substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence. The Supreme Court has laid down in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works vs Rangaswamy (A I R 1980 Supreme Court, P. 1253) that a concurrent finding based on evidence should not normally be touched by the High Court, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Even otherwise I do not find any illegality or material error of jurisdiction in the order under revision on this aspect of the case warranting any interference in exercise of the revisional powers under section 22 of the A P Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the "Rent Control Act")

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M Shankaraiah has raised another legal point about the applicability of the provisions of the Rent Control Act to the Cantonment Areas. The Mulgi in question in this case bearing No. 1-1-4 (Mulgi No. 4) situated at Commissory Bazaar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad is within the Secunderabad Cantonment Area, and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under the Rent Control Act are not maintainable. A Court notice was issued to the learned Advocate General to clarify this point at the time of the admission of the C R P it self. In this connection it would be pertinent to refer to Sec. 3 of the Cantonments (Extention of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 which is in the following terms; "3. Power to extend to cantonments laws relating to control of rents and regulation of house accommodation. The Central Government may by 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 contonment is situated: Provided that nothing contained in any enactment so extended shall apply to- (a) any premises within the cantonment belonging to the Government (b) any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of premises within the cantonment taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government; or (c) any house within the cantonment which is, or may be, appropriated toy the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923". A reading of the above Section makes it clear that the Central Government has the power to issue a notification in the Official Gazette extending the Laws relating to Control of Rents and regulations of House accommodation with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit. The learned Advocate General appearing in pursuance of Court notice has drawn my attention to the Notification issued by Ministry of Defence, New Delhi on the 8th of August, 1973 and published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary. By virtue of this notification issued in pursuance of the power conferred by sub-Section (1; of Section 3 of the Contonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, the Central Government has extended to the Contonment of Secunderabed, the Rent Control Act with certain modifications. However, none of these modifications made in the notifications has any relevance for the purpose of this case. Afortiori the point which emerges clearly is that the Central Government has extended the application of the Rent Control Act to the Cantonment of Secundcrabad under the powers vested in it by virtue of Section 3 of the Centonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957. A decision in Merwanji V. Union Of India (AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 1309) was brought to my notice in which a contention was raised that the Bombay Rent Act of 1947 does not apply to the Cantonment areas of Poona and Kirkee. It was held in this case that the provisions of Bombay Rent Act, 1947 excluding Section 50 were validly extended by virtue of a notification dt. 27th December, 1969 made under Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957. Similarly in Jai Singh Jairam Tyagi vs. Maman Chand (AIR 1980 Supreme Court, 1201) it has been laid down that a notification could be issued extending a State Legislation to a Centonment Area from the date of the notification. It was further held in this case that under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Contral Laws) Act, 1957 a notification can be given effect from an anterior date or a future date, but it cannot be made effertive from a date earlier than the contraactaent of the State Legislation or the establishment of the Contonment.

(3.) In view of this well settled state of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions cited above, it cannot be said that the Rent Control Act cannot be applied to the Cantonment area of Secunderabad.