NAWAL MAL Vs. NATHU MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference originally came before a learned single Judge and has in turn been made by him to a larger bench.

(2.) THE questions referred to this bench for answer are as follows:

(3.) AT the outset we may state a few facts which have culminated in this reference. The plaintiff Nawal Mal filed a suit against the defendant Nathu Lal for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment in the Court of the Munsif, Ajmer District, Ajmer in the first instance, and thence, it was transferred to the Court Of the Munsif, nasirabad, from whom this reference has emanated. The plaintiff is a landlord and the defendant a tenant. This suit was filed on the 1st of April, 1958. The plaintiff claimed ejectment of the defendant on the ground of default in payment of rents and further that the former required, the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for the use or occupation of himself or his family within the meaning of the rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950 ). The Act of 1950 was made applicable to the Nasirabad cantonment area by this state from the 27th of November, 1957 by a notification dated 27th November, 1957 issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act of 1950, as amended by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amending and Extending act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act of 1957), and published in the Rajasthan. Gazette Extra Ordinary Part 4 (A) at page 157 of the same date. Prior to this, the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act No. 38 of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) was in force in the Nasirabad cantonment area. This Act was passed by the Indian Parliament and was brought into force in the Ajmer territory, in which the Nasirabad cantonment area is included, on the 9th of June, 1952. When the case, came up for arguments before the Munsif, it was strenuously contended before him on behalf of the defendant that the Act of 1950 could not be applied to the present case which arises out of the said cantonment area, inasmuch as the legislature of this State had no legislative competence to enact any law for the regulation of house accommodation including the control of rent in the cantonment area of Nasirabad, this head of legislation falling within entry 3 in list 1 of the 7th schedule of the Constitution, and, therefore, being exclusively a union subject. It was, therefore, contended, that Section 2 of the Act of 1950 in so far as the provisions of that Act were extended thereunder to the Nasirabad cantonment area, was ultra vires of the legislature of the State, and, consequently, the notification dated the 27th November 1957, under which the provisions of this Act were extended to the area in question, was void and of no legal effect. It was further contended that that being so, the provisions of the Act of 1952 would still govern this case as the legislature of this State was incompetent to repeal the provisions of that Act qua this area. The question as to which of the two Acts, namely, the Act of 1950 or the Act of 1952, is applicable assumes importance, as the provisions of the two Acts, as correctly stated by the learned Munsif, are substantially different in so far as the eviction of a tenant may be claimed by a landlord, whether on the ground of bona fide or personal necessity or, on the ground of default in payment of rent, and further because the central question raised in this reference is likely to have a bearing on a large number of cases pending in subordinate Courts, arising out of this part of the State. This is in short the background against which the questions referred to us arise for answer.