FIRM KASHIRAM BIHARILAL Vs. BADRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 25 -12 -1952 in appeal of the District Judge Guna, whereby he modified a decision of the Rent Fixation Authority Guna and determined Rs. 27/ - per month as the fair rent of certain premises rented out by the opponent Badrilal from the petitioner. The applicant contends that the Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan Samvat 2009 was operative only until 30 -6 -1951 and that thereafter neither the Bent Fixation Authority nor the District Judge has any jurisdiction to fix any rent in respect of the tenated premises.

(2.) THE Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan came into force on 9 -2 -1950. Section 1 (4) of the Act provided that the Act shall remain in force until 30 -6 -1951. The proviso to that section, however, laid down that the Government may, if it considered it expedient to do so, extend the duration of the Act by a further period of two years from the date on which the Act would otherwise expire. On 26 -3 -1951 the Government issued a notification continuing in force the Act till 30 -6 -1953. Mr. Patankar learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the proviso to S. 1(4) under which the Government extended the duration of the Act was not valid inasmuch as it gave to the Executive a legislative power which the legislature could not repose in any organ or body; that the extension of the Act for a further period of two years from 30 -6 -1951 by Government notification amounted to exercise of delegated legislative power and as such was ultra vires and that, therefore the Act ceased to operate on 30 -6 -1951.

(3.) AFTER pointing out that the period of operation of the Essential Supplies Act mentioned in S. 1(3) was not necessarily one year from the date of cessation of emergency; that it could be two years if the Governor -General by notification so directed and it may even go upto a maximum period of five years in instalments of one year each under the proviso, and after emphasizing the fact that the fixation of the period of operation of the Act was not left to any other Act but was provided by the Act itself, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court said that the case of : AIR 1949 FC 175 (A), had no application and further observed as follows: