ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE Vs. TH. HARNAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal came to be heard by one of us. An important question relating to interpretation of S.1(3)(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, ((hereinafter referred to as "The Act") was raised in the appeal. It was canvassed on behalf of the appellant that admittedly the plaintiff claimed ejectment of the suit premises under Proviso (h)(i) to Section 11(1) of the Act. The Union of India could claim exemption from the operation of the Act under Section 1(3)(i) of the Act. It was submitted that the word 'Government' occurring in Section 1(3)(i) of the Act included the Union Government To support this proposition of law, reliance was placed upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case Union of India v. Narain Singh, reported as 1976 Kash LJ 33 : (AIR 1976 J and K 5). In the aforesaid decision, the view has been expressed that the expression "Government" occurring in Cl.(i) of S.1(3) of the Act, also means the Union of India.

(2.) ON the other hand, another Division Bench of this court while deciding the case of L. Bhagwan Dass Mengi, v. Union of India. reported in AIR 1961 J. and K. 39. took a contrary view and laid down that the word "Government" could be interpreted only to mean State Government and not Union Government. In order to resolve this conflict of decisions, it was felt necessary to refer the question of law to the Full Bench. This is how the case has come before us.

(3.) IT is however, noticed that the Division Bench in AIR 1961 J and K 39, did not elaborately discuss the legal question and in a short judgement disposed of this question. The view proceeded on concession made by the other side in that case. On the other hand, the Division Bench in 1976 Kash LJ 33 : (AIR 1976 J and K 5) (supra) considered the question in a more detailed manner and concluded by observing that the word "Government" included the Union Government.