LALJI ALIAS BHOLA Vs. SATPAL KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE East Punjab Urban, Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1919) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on its publication in the East Punjab Gazette on the 25th of March, 1949, subsection (2) of section 1 whereof provided: - -

(2.) RELYING upon the later part of this provision argument was raised in Rajeshwar Prashad v. Bansilal, (1960) 62 P.L.R. 143, that this Act did not apply to cantonment areas. This contention was, however, repelled by the learned Judges of a division Bench accepting the view of the Bombay High Court in A.C. Patel v. Vishwanath Chada : A.I.R. 1954 Bom. 204, wherein it was held that regulation of house accommodation in any cantonment area came within the legislative competence of a State legislature under List II entry 18. Subsequently, however, a similar question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundari Debt and another, 1969 (1) S.C.A. 671, and it was held that the expression "regulation of house accommodation in any cantonment area" came within entry 3 of the Union List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and thus the Parliament had exclusive power to make laws with regard to these matters, notwithstanding the fact that similar power may also be found in any Entry in List II or List III. In dealing with this matter Bhargava, J, delivering the judgment of the Court, observed as follows :

(3.) AS the matter then stood, it was obvious that under the Act no action under any State Rent Control legislation could be taken in respect of any premises situated within the cantonment areas. The Government of India, however, stepped into remedy the situation by issuing Ministry of Defence Notification No. S.R.O. 7, dated 21st November, 1969, extending the provisions of the Act to cantonment areas in the States of Punjab and Haryana, in exercise of its power under section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rant Control Laws) Act. 1957. Thereupon the tenants and landlords in the cantonment areas found themselves free to invoke the provisions of the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. One of such cases related to fixation a standard rent of shop situated in Kalibari Sadar Bazar in the area of Ambala Cantonment, giving rise in Civil Revision 336 of 1971, Amrit Lal Bhatta v. Smt. Vidya Kumari, against the order of the Appellate Authority appointed under Act. When it came up before R.S. Narula J, the very jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority and Rent Controller to take any proceedings with regard to the premises situate in the cantonment area was challenged in these words;