JAGJIT SINGH KANG Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who claim to be in occupation of certain shops as tenants in Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (for short, S.A.S. Nagar), commonly known as 'Mohali' and a satellite town of Chandigarh and also office bearers of an association, known as Tenants Welfare Association', impugn the notification of the Punjab State Government, dated February 9, 1984 (Annexure P.4), exempting the buildings and rented lands situated in the urban area administered by the Notified Area Committee, S.A.S, Nagar. This notification reads as follows :-

(2.) That the said assumption is in tune with the recommendations of the Economic and Administrative Reforms Commission, which inter alia recommended that all the new constructions should be exempted from the application of the Act. The necessity and applicability of the said recommendation in this town is more poignantly and economically felt." It is further explained in the return filed by the Government that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was made applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh in the year 1974, i.e. practically after about 25 years of its construction which started somewhere in the year 1949/1950. Almost for the same very reasons this satellite town (S.A.S. Nagar) of Chandigarh wherein the building activity initially started in the year 1970 has been exempted from the provisions of the Act up to 1995, i.e. for about a period of 25 years from the date of its inception. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is the settled position that the Courts are normally not concerned with the policy of the Legislature or with the result of giving effect to the language of a statute. Equally settled is the proposition that the manner and intendment of the Legislature which is always presumed to be valid, has to be effectuated and not negatived by the process of interpretation by Courts. The argument that with the specification of the area within which the buildings or rented lands exempted or sought to be exempted are situated the present notification goes outside the ambit of section 3 of the Act, does not appeal to us at all. This section reads as follows :-

(3.) Thus we dismiss this petition in limine with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.