Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ruchira Vinayak And Ors. vs Iind Additional District Judge And Ors. on 21 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)AWC217
JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. This is tenant's writ petition. Suit filed by the landlord/respondent for eviction of the tenant petitioner has been decreed by both the courts below on the ground that the Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) does not apply to the building in dispute by virtue of Notification No. S.R.O. 17.2.1982 and no ground of eviction as mentioned in Section 20 (2) of the Act is necessary to be proved by the landlord. The house in dispute which is in the form of an out house of a bungalow is situate within the cantonment limits of Meerut. Earlier the petition was allowed through Judgment dated 13.12.1996 and matter was remanded to the Revisional Court to determine the question of applicability of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. However, the Supreme Court through judgment dated 19.8.1997 delivered in S.L.P. No. 8378 of 1997 reversed the Judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for deciding the said question itself.
2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act. 1957 and in supersession of the notification dated 1.9.1973 (S.R.O. 259) Central Government through notification S.R.O. 47, dated 17.2.1982 extended to all the cantonments in the State of U. P., U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 with certain modifications mentioned therein. Two notifications of 1.9.1973 and 17.2.1982 are substantially similar with minor difference, which are not relevant for the decision of the instant case.
3. Section 1 (3) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides that the said Act shall apply to (a) every city ; (b) every municipality ; (c) every notified area and (d) every town area. Through the aforesaid notifications of September, 1973 and February, 1982 Clause (e) has been added to Section 1 (3) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which is as under :
"(e) Every cantonment in U. P. declared to be a cantonment under Section 3 of the Cantonment Act, 1924."
4. By virtue of Section 2 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the said Act does not apply to the building mentioned under the said section. Through aforesaid notifications of September, 1973 and February, 1982, Clause (cc) has been added to Clause 2 (1) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which is as follows :
"(cc) Any building within the cantonment, which is or may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act, 1923."
5. This is in consonance with Section 3 proviso (c) of Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act. 1957 which is quoted below :
"3 (1) The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette extend to pay cantonment with such restriction and modifications as it thinks fit any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which is inforce in the state in which the Cantonment is situated :
Provided that nothing contained in any enactment so extended shall apply to :
(a) x x x x x x x (b) x x x x x x x
(c) any house within cantonment which is or may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923."
6. The net result is that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 applies to cantonment areas but not to such house, which "are or may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease under 1923 Act."
7. There is no dispute that in respect of the Cantonment in which house in dispute is situate, notification under Section 3 (1) of Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 has been issued and is in force.
8. In Section 5 of Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act, 1923, it is provided that every house situate in the cantonment covered by notification under Section 3 (1) shall be liable to appropriation by the Central Government on lease subject to the conditions provided thereafter. Section 10 of the said Act states that no notice shall be issued under Section 7 (such notice being the first step towards appropriation) with regard to certain accommodation.
9. Two important points are involved in this cases. The first is the meaning of the word, "is, or may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease" used in aforesaid notifications of 1973 and 1982, in juxta-position to the word, "shall be liable to appropriation by the Central Government on lease" used in Section 5 of Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. The second point to be considered is whether houses which are not to be appropriated under Section 10 of the aforesaid Act, 1923 can be said to be not liable to appropriation under Section 5 of the said Act and are not covered by the exemption Clause (cc) (is, or may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease) added by aforesaid notifications of 1973 and 1982 to Section 2 of U, P. Act No. XIII of 1972 even if words 'liable to be appropriated' and 'may be appropriated' are held to mean the same thing.
10. The purpose of Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act, 1923, is to make available houses to Military Officers or for the military mess on lease and to regulate relationship in between landlord and such military officer or the mess after the lease. It has got nothing to do with the relationship or regulation of the same in between private landlord and private tenant. Any house which is in tenancy occupation of a private person whether the accommodation is covered by State Rent Control Act or not is liable to be appropriate under the aforesaid Act of 1923. Under Section 12 of the said Act, District Magistrate may enforce the surrender of the house. The words 'is or may be appropriated' means that a house which had already been appropriated or which may be appropriated in future after the notification. The words 'may be appropriated' cannot be read as liable to be appropriated for to reasons. Firstly, in case the intention was otherwise, same word should have been used at both the places. The Act of 1957, used the words 'may be appropriated' (supra). If the intention of the Legislature was to make the said proviso applicable to all the houses liable to be appropriated, then the words 'liable to be appropriated' as used in Section 5 of Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 would have been used. The second reason is that if 'may be appropriated' and 'liable to be appropriated' are taken to mean the same thing, then extension of State Rent Control Act to the buildings in Cantonment will become illusory and meaningless. It would amount to saying that the said Rent Control Act applies to the Cantonment areas but not to any buildings in the Cantonment area because every building in Cantonment area is liable to be appropriated on lease under the aforesaid Act of 1923, In view of this, it is not necessary to decide the second point. It is, therefore, held that U. P. Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) applies to all the buildings within a Cantonment regarding which notification has been issued under Section 3 (1) of Cantonment (House Accommodation) Act. 1923 except the buildings which are appropriated on lease under the said Act. The result is that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 applies to the building in question. In the authority reported in 1980 ARC 319, the validity of the aforesaid notification of 1973 applying U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 to the buildings in cantonments was upheld. The said authority was approved by a Division Bench authority reported in Lekhraj v. IVth A.D.J., Meerut, 1982 ARC 27 (the instant case also arises out from the same cantonment, i.e., Meerut Cantonment). The Supreme Court in the authority reported in 1989 (1) ARC 1, has upheld the aforesaid decisions (The Supreme Court did not agree with part of the reasoning of the first judgment). The Supreme Court also upheld the validity of notification dated 17.2.1982. In none of these cases, the question involved in the instant case was raised. Learned counsel for the tenant has also placed reliance upon 1987 (1) ARC 38, wherein it has been held that a house which is in the process of being appropriated on lease under the aforesaid Act and regarding which resort has already been taken to the conditions provided in Sections 6 and 7, etc. is exempted from the purview of the Act.
11. Accordingly, it is held that the suit was wrongly decreed by both the courts below. Admittedly, if Rent Control Act applies to building in dispute, then the suit could not be decreed as no ground for ejectment mentioned in Section 20 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was taken in the plaint. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Judgment and decree passed of J.S.C.C., Meerut dated 2.4.1990 in S.C.C. Suit No. 116 of 1988 and Judgment and order passed by IInd A.D.J., Meerut dated 24.4.1995 in S.C.C. Revision No. III of 1990 are set aside. The suit of the landlord/respondent is dismissed.