JAG DUTTA Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the case of Smt. Savitri Devi, respondent, is that the property in dispute was owned by Dr. C. M. Paul who had given it on lease to Jag Dutta, petitioner. She purchased the property from Dr. Paul vide sale deed dated April 18, 1968. Consequently Jag Dutta became a tenant under her. She filed an application for ejectment of Jag Dutta, tenant, on the ground that he had not paid arrears of rent and that she required the premises in dispute for her own use and occupation. The application was contested by Jag Dutta. He tendered the rent on the first date of hearing which was duly accepted by the landlady. The tenant, however, controverted the allegation regarding her personal necessity. He further pleaded that the premises were non-residential and as such the ground of personal necessity was not available to her. He also challenged the validity of the notice by which his tenancy had been terminated. The Rent Controller held that the property in dispute was a residential building and the land-lady required the same for her personal use and occupation. He further held that the tenancy had been validly terminated by the authorities. Consequently he allowed the application and ordered ejectment of the tenant. Jag Dutta went up in appeal to the District Judge, Ambala, who affirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. He came up in revision against the judgment of the District Judge, to this Court.

(2.) THE revision petition was listed before me in Single Bench. Some questions of law were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering that the questions were of considerable importance and were likely to affect a large number of cases, I referred the following two questions to a Division Bench:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing on the first question, contends that by virtue of provisions of Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 1957 act), the Central Government could extend to any Cantonment enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which is in force in the State in which the Cantonment is situated. He argues that the central Government has no power under Section 3 to extend the notifications by which the Rent Controllers and Appellate Authorities are appointed by the state Governments under such enactments. According to the learned counsel, it was only the Central Legislature which could constitute the Courts in the cantonment areas for enforcement of any enactment relating to the control of rents and regulation of house accommodation. He submits that under the East punjab Urban Kent Restriction Act (hereinafter refer-red to es the 1949 Act), the State Government had appointed Rent Controllers and Appellate Authorities for the erstwhile State of Punjab. After extending the provisions of the 1949 Act in the Cantonments in the States of Punjab and Har-yana, the Rent Controllers and Appellate Authorities appointed by the State Government started acting as such within the Cantonments, which they could not do. He urges that if the aforesaid act amounts to delegation by the Central Government of its functions to the State Government, then the act of delegation is bad as the Central government had no right to do so.