HARKISHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 266 and 1924 of 1974) will be disposed of by this judgment as they raise a common question of law.

(2.) THE facts of C. W. 266 of 1974, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, Dr. Harkishan Singh, his wife and two sons, purchased shop-cum-flat No. 7, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh, from Lt. Col. Surjit Singh Padda by means of a registered sale deed dated October 13, 1971. At that time, Tara Chand Jain, respondent 3, was the tenant of those premises and he attorned as a tenant to the petitioner. The rent of the premises was Rs. 300/- per mensem which he paid from November, 1971 to February, 1972, to the petitioner. The petitioner, his two sons and his wife, terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to respondent 3 and, on his failure to vacate the premises, they filed a suit for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages on May 12, 1972. The plea raised by respondent 3 was that he had attorned only to the petitioner and not to his wife and sons. He also resisted the suit on other grounds but the learned Senior Subordinate Judge passed a decree for his ejectment on July 25, 1973. Against that decree, respondent 3 filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on December 1, 1973. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had sued out execution of the decree in his favour to which respondent 3 raised objections. The execution application was dismissed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge on November 9, 1973, on the ground that it had become unexecutabfe under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which had been applied to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by notification of the Central Government dated October 13, 1972, published in the Government of India Gazette dated November 4, 1972, and Chandigarh Administration Gazette (Extraordinary) dated November 28, 1972. The validity of that notification has been challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds: 1. That the erstwhile State of Punjab had decided to exempt Chandigarh for 25 years from the operation of the Act and some other Acts under which tax on land or buildings could be imposed and this decision was notified by means of a Press Note dated May 23, 1959. In view of that decision, the Central Government was estopped from applying the Act to Chandigarh prior to 1948. 2. That by virtue of Section 89 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Re-organisation Act), the Central Government was empowered to adept any law made before the appointed day for the purpose of facilitating its application to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and in exercise of that power the Central Government issued the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (Chandigarh) (Adaptation of Laws of State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Adaptation Order), by notification dated November 20, 1968, which was published in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette (Extraordinary) dated November 21, 1968, but under that Order the Act could not be adapted for application to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, in view of the definition of 'existing law' in para 2 (1) (b) of that Order.

(3.) AT the hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to point No. 2 and has not pressed point No. 1 at all and we have, therefore, to determine whether there is any substance in point No. 2, without expressing any opinion on point No. 1.