JARBAI Vs. PHIROJSHA BAIRAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also govern Second Appeals Nos. 348 of 1957, 70, 78, 234, 299, 415, 432, 454, 465 and 522all of 1958, and 75, 107, 120 all of 1959, Misc. (S) Appeal No. 122 of 1959, and Second Appeals Nos. 239 and 253 of 1959. All these appeals have come before us by way of cases referred by our learned brothers sitting singly and raise a question of the construction to be placed on Sections 16 and 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Extension of Laws Act, 1958.

(2.) ALL these appeals, with the exception of Miscellaneous (Second) Appeal No. 122 of 1959, arise out of suits for eviction instituted in the Mahakoshal, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal regions of the State of Madhya Pradesh before the coming into force of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, on the 1st January 1959. The excepted appeal arises out of execution proceedings of a decree for ejectment passed on 23rd July 1957 by the Subordinate Judge, Bhopal, against a tenant. Some of the Appellants before us are landlords and the others are tenants. Immediately before 1st January 1959, different Acts regulating rent and letting of accommodation were in force in the Mahakoshal, Madhya Bharat Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal regions. In Mahakoshal, the C. P. and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, was in force. The same Act, as adapted by the former State of Vindhya Pradesh was in force in that area. In Madhya Bharat, the M. B. Accommodation Control Act, 1955, was operative, and in Bhopal the relevant Act in force was the Bhopal State Bent Control Act, 1956. The Madhya Pradesh Extension of Laws Act, 1958, extended to the whole of Madhya Pradesh inter alia the Madhya Bharat Accommodation Control Act, 1955, with certain modifications from 1st January 1959. Section 6 of the M. P. Extension of Laws Act runs as follows:

(3.) THIS contention, if accepted, would altogether render Sections 16 and 17 of the Act redundant and purposeless and cannot be accepted. It is true that the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, and the Bhopal State Rent Control Act, 1956, differ from those of the new Act. But those Acts as well as the new are all concerned with the regulation and control of rent, letting of accommodation and restrictions on eviction. In order that two laws may be corresponding, it is not necessary that one should be identical in every respect with the other. What has to be seen is whether one law deals with the same subject -matter in omnibus as the other. There can be no doubt that the Acts referred to are Acts corresponding to the extended Act; and if, as we think, they are so, then clearly they stand repealed on the extension of the new Act to the whole of Madhya Pradesh on the 1st January 1959. The proviso to Section 6 of the M. P. Extension of Laws Act no doubt says that the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any repealed law. Under this proviso, the rights vested in the parties on the institution of suits for eviction before the 1st January 1959 and on the passing of a decree for eviction before that date are no doubt not affected by the repeal. But from that it does not follow that the provisions of the new Act also cannot affect such vested rights. What the proviso says is that the 'repeal 'shall not affect' and not that 'nothing in the extended Act or any repeal effected by the substantive provision of Section 6 shall affect'. The proviso to Section 6 of the Extension of Laws Act was inserted by way of abundant caution. In the absence of the proviso, Section 10 of the M. P. General Clauses Act, 1957 would have applied. The question whether the new Act keeps alive old rights and liabilities or whether it destroys them has to be decided by the provisions of the new Act itself and not by the repealing provision viz, Section 6 of the M. P. Extension of Laws Act, 1958. That, this is the principle to be applied when the repeal of an enactment is followed by a fresh legislation is now authoritatively settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh AIR 1955 SC 84 and Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property AIR 1956 SC 77, In the former case, it was observed at page 88: