Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21) Mr. Seervai, would further submit that the word 'or' appearing in paragraph (ii) of Section 7(14)(b) of the MRC Act is an obvious drafting error and that the same is required to be omitted. He would submit that erroneous use of the word 'or' in Section 7(14)

(b)(ii) makes absurd reading of the provision and that omission of the said word would make meaning of the clause clearer. He would submit that in exercise of interpretative function, Courts can omit or supply word where the plain and normal reading as well as grammatical construction leads to confusion, absurdity or repugnancy with the other provisions. In support, he would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited and Another Versus. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private (2006) 6 SCC 530 (1981) 1 SCC 51 8 August 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-372-2019 with CRA-373-2019-JR-LFC Limited and Others7. Mr. Seervai would go a step further and submit that in fact in a case where there is a drafting error, it is the duty of the Court to correct the same and in support he would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhasker and Another Versus. Ayodhya Jewellers8.

(iii) of Section 5(10)(b) of Bombay Rent Act are fused/coalesced into paragraph (ii) of Section 7(14)(b) of the MRC Act. I am unable to agree with this submission of Mr. Shah and I find that use of the word 'or' appearing in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of Section 7(14) of the MRC Act is a drafting error. This is because if the said paragraph (ii) is to be read alongwith the word ' or' appearing therein between 'the date of 1 October 1987' and the words 'the rent at which they were last let', the same results in an absurd situation. On the contrary, if the word 'or' appearing in paragraph (ii) is omitted, the same makes meaningful reading of the said clause. In any event, even if the word 'or' is retained in paragraph (ii), the same does not convey the meaning which Mr. Shah wants this Court to derive out of the said paragraph (ii). Even if the word ' or' is retained and read into paragraph (ii), the same does not mean that paragraph (ii) is applicable in respect of tenancies created before and after 1 October 1987. On the contrary, retention of the word ' or' in paragraph (ii) makes absurd reading of the said paragraph and therefore the correct course of action to be adopted is to omit the said word 'or'. If the word 'or' is omitted, paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of Section 7(14) becomes meaningful. This is clear from following comparative chart:
71) In my view, therefore use of the word 'or' in paragraph
(ii) of Section 7(14)(b) of MRC Act is a drafting error and therefore it is appropriate that the said word is omitted from paragraph (ii).

There are numerous decisions of the Apex Court, which empower Courts to add or omit words when the plain and normal meaning of the words or grammatical construction thereof leads to confusion, absurdity or repugnancy with the other provisions. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra), the Apex Court has discussed the general rule of interpretation of statutes in para-20 by observing that when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the provision should be given its plain and normal meaning without adding or rejecting any words. Mr. Shah has relied upon judgments in Union of India V/s. Rajiv Kumar (supra) and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai (supra) in support of his contention about impermissibility to add or omit anything into the statutory provision or rewrite the provision which is plain and unambiguous. There cannot be any dispute to this proposition and in fact this principle is discussed by the Apex Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. in para-20. It is therefore not necessary to reproduce the findings of the Apex Court in the said two judgments so as not to burden this otherwise lengthy judgment any further. However in para-21 onwards of its judgment in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, the Apex 8 August 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-372-2019 with CRA-373-2019-JR-LFC Court has discussed the exception to the above general rule and has held as under:

20. As a normal rule, while interpreting the statute, the Court will not add words or omit words or substitute words. However, there is a wellrecognized exception to this rule which is found in a decision of the House of Lords in the case of Inco Europe Limited v. First Choice Distribution , wherein the Court held thus:
(WLR, p.592) "... The court must be able to correct obvious drafting errors. In suitable cases, in discharging its interpretative function the court will add words, or omit words or substitute words. Some notable instances are given in Professor Sir Rupert Cross's admirable opuscule, Statutory Interpretation, 3rd Edn.(1995), pp.93105. He comments at p.103: