AMRITSARIN MAL Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question argued in these second appeals (Nos. 101 -D and 102 -D of 1958) is whether the premises in suit, which were owned by the Pepsu State (now merged in the Punjab State) are or are not exempt from the operation of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (Act 38 of 1952). Section 3 of Act No. 38 of 1952 is in the following words - -

(2.) APPLYING this definition, any property, whether belonging to the Central Government or any State Government would be exempt from the provisions of Act 38 of 1952. The property in suit, admittedly, belonged to the Pepsu State at the time of the institution of the suit and now belongs to the Punjab State. Therefore, the provisions of Act 38 of 1952 would not apply to the same and the decision of the Courts below on this point is, accordingly correct.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel then contended that since the Central Legislature had passed Act 38 of 1952 for the States of Delhi and Ajmer only, it ceased to be a "Central Act" and the definition of the expression "the Government" given in Act 10 of. 1897 could not be applied.