http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: FIRMS AMAR NATH BASHESHAR DASS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TEK CHAND

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/03/1972

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN HEGDE, K.S. MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1972 AIR 1548            1972 SCR  (3) 822  1972 SCC  (1) 853  CITATOR INFO :  D          1987 SC2284  (5,7,9)

ACT: Punjab  Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Ss. 3 and 13  read with  notification  dated  July  13,  1965--Exemption   from provision  of  section 13 whether can be  claimed  in  cases where  suit for eviction filed within 5 years of  completion of  building  but  decree obtained after expiry  of  said  5 years.

HEADNOTE: Under  the Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 a landlord  can evict  a  tenant only on the grounds and  according  to  the procedure  provided in section 13 of the Act.  Section 3  of the  Act provides for exemption to be granted by  Government from  the  operation of section 13.  By  notification  dated July  30,  1965 the Government of Punjab  granted  such  ex- emption  in respect of building constructed during the  year 1959 to 1963 for a period of 5 years from the date of  their completion,  on  the  .condition that  during  the  aforsaid period  of  exemption  suits for  ejectment  of  tenants  in respect  of  those, buildings "were or  are"  institutes  in civil courts and decrees of ejectment "were or are"  passed. The respondent had let out to the appellant a building which was  completed  in  1960.   A  suit  for  ejectment  of  the appellant was filed in 1963 and decree was obtained in 1969. In  proceeding  for  execution  the  question  was   whether the  .decree, having been obtained more than 5  years  after completion  of  the building, was exempt from  operation  of section 13.  The High Court in second appeal held in  favour of  the  respondent.   In appeal to this  Court  by  special leave,  the appellant contended that the decree in the  suit having  been passed after 1 period of 5 years from the  date of construction, exemption from restrictions placed by s. 13 will  not be available because not only the suit  should  be filed but the decree for eviction should be obtained  within the said period of 5 years. HELD : The filing of the suit within the period of exemption is  the only condition that is necessary to satisfy  one  of the  requirements  of the exemption, the  other  requirement being the passing of the decree in respect of which no  time

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

has  been  prescribed.  If the degree, as contended  by  the appointment has to be obtained within the period of 5 years, there was no need to specify the at the suit had to be filed within   that   period  because  the  exemption   from   the requirements  of s. 13 is only in respect of the decree  and not the suit. [928 F] The use of the words ’were or are’ in respect of decree  ,is A will as suits supports the above interpretation.  The suit should  have  been filed or are her-,-after,  to  filed  and likewise  decrees  of  ejectment  bid  been  passed  or  are hereafter to be passed.  Further, a suit may conceivably  be filed  on  the  last  day  of the  expiry  of  the  5  years exemption.   If  so it will be absurd to  postulate  that  a decree would be given immediately thereafter, as that  would be the result, if the contention that both the suit.and  the decree  should be passed within the period of exemption.  is accepted. [927 H-928 E] 923 A  statue  must be interpreted in the light of  its  object. The  very  purpose of the exemption of buildings’ from  ’the operation of s. 13 was to give landlords the light which  as owners of buildings they had under the ordinary law, namely, to   give  them  on  lease  at  rents  which  they   thought remunerative  and  to  evict  tenant’s  during  that  period without any fetters imposed by the Act.  If no provision was made  for exempting such decrees in respect of the  exempted buildings the exemption granted will be illusory.[1926 H-927 E] Accordingly the appeal must fail.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 1052 of 1971. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated May 27, 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in  Execu- tion Second Appeal No. 1783 of 1970. M. C. Chagla, V. C. Mahajan, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta and K.R. Nagaraja, for the appellant. M. C. Setalvad, 0. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, foi the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. Jaganmohan Reddy,, J. The respondent who was constructing a  building, had leased it out on a monthly tenancy  to  the appellant on the 1st November 1959.  The building was  ulti- mately  completed  in March 1960.  On 14-1-1963 he  filed  a suit and got a decree for ejectment on 14-8-1969.  On  29-8- 1969 he filed an execution petition but the executing  court dismissed it on 16-4-1970 on the ground that the  conditions prescribed  in the notification of the Government of  Punjab under  section  3 of the Punjab Urban Rent  Restriction  Act 1949   (hereinafter  called  the  Act’)   dated   30-7-1965, exempting such decrees from section 13 of the said Act  were not  complied  with.  An appeal against  this  judgment  was unsuccessful.   On a second appeal the High Court held  that the  decree  was  executable inasmuch  as  that  decree  was exempted under the notification.  This appeal is by  special leave against that judgment. Before we notice the conditions prescribed for the exemption of  decrees of eviction against tenants from the  provisions of  the Act, it is necessary to refer to section 13  of  the Act  in  so  far  as it is  relevant  and  the  notification exempting   decrees  obtained  by  certain   categories   of landlords  from those provisions.  It is wellknown that  due to  the non-availability of housing accommodation  in  urban

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

areas  and  the  consequent hardship  to  tenants  who  were already occupying buildings on lease, almost all the  States enacted legislation by and under which the landlords’ rights to  evict  tenants as well as the right  to  recover  higher exorbitant  rents  were  considerably cut  down.   The  main scheme of these Acts generally was to make it obligatory  on landlords intending to 924 evict  tenants  to make applications  before  the  authority prescribed  under the Act only on the grounds  specified  in the particular legislation, The Rent Control Authority alone could make an enquiry and order eviction.  The  jurisdiction of the civil courts was taken away.  In some of the  States, such  as  in  Uttar Pradesh, civil courts  were  allowed  to entertain  eviction suits but subject to prior  leave  being obtain  from  the District Magistrate.  In other  words,  in that  State  two  rounds of  litigation  were  provided  for Similarly, applications for fixation of fair rent where  the rent  charged was considered to be exorbitant could also  be made  before  these authorities.  These  restrictions  could not,   however,   serve  as  a  panacea  for   solving   the accommodation  problem  in urban cities  consequent  on  the phenomenal  migration of population into those  areas  which was  further  aggravated by large scale exodus  due  to  the partition  of  India.  It, therefore, became  necessary  for each of the State Governments not only to undertake building schemes  itself  but also to encourage persons who  had  the means to build by exempting newly constructed building which were let out to tenants from rent control restrictions for a particular period.  One of such legislations is the Act with which  we  are  now concerned.  Unlike  other  Rent  Control legislations, this Act adopts rather a novel method, in that while it permits suits being filed and decrees obtained,  it places  restrictions  against  their  execution  except   on specified  grounds.   In  this case,  however,  we  are  not concerned  with the novelty of the legislation or the  hard- ship,  expense and delay which is caused to the landlord  or the tenant by the innovation adopted by it.  We may now read the relevant provisions of section 13 which are as under :-               " 13 (1). A tenant in possession of a building               or rented land shall not be evicted  therefrom               in  execution  of a decree  passed  before  or               after   the  commencement  of  this   Act   or                             otherwise  and  whether  before  or  a fter  the               termination   of   the  tenancy,   except   in               accordance   with  the  provisions   of   this               section,  or  in pursuance of  an  order  made               under  section  13 of the  Punjab  Urban  Rent               Restriction   Act   1,947,   as   subsequently               amended.               (2)  A landlord who seeks to evict his  tenant               shall apply to the Controller for a  direction               in  that  behalf.  If  the  Controller,  after               giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity  of               showing   cause  against  the  applicant,   is               satisfied-               (here  the  grounds upon which  he  should  be               satisfied have been set out)               the controller may make an order directing the               tenant  to put the landlord in  possession  of               the building or,  925 rented  land  and if the Controller is not so  satisfied  he shall make an order rejecting  the application

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

Provided   that  the  Controller  may  give  the  tenant   a reasonable  time for putting the landlord in  possession  of the  building or rented land and may extend such time so  as not to exceed three months in the aggregate. (3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an  order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession- (The grounds on which he can apply have been set out) (b) The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the  claim of  the landlord is bona fide make an order  directing,  the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building  or rented  land  on  such  date as  may  be  specified  by  the Controller  and if the’ ’Controller is not so satisfied,  he shall make an order rejecting the application (c)  x          x           x           x              x Provided  that  the  Controller  ipay  give  the  tenant   a reasonable  times for putting the landlord in possession  of the  building or rented land and may extend such time so  as not to exceed three months in the aggregate. (4)   x        x         x         x         x (5)   x         x        x         x         x The  Government under section has been empowered to,  direct that all or any of the provisions of the Act shall not apply to  any particular building. or rented land or any class  of building or rented lands.  Pursuant to this power, the State Government  was  notifying  exemptions  from  time  to  time during,  a  period of 20 years, the  first  notification  it appears  having  been  issued on the 8th  March  1951  which exempted  buildings  constructed in 1951 and 1952  from  the provisions  of the Act for a period of 5. years with  effect from   the  date  of  completion  of  any   such   building. Thereafter  followed  several notifications  which  exempted buildings constructed in each of the years after 1952.   The notification  with which we are now concerned was issued  on 30-7-1965 and is in the following terms:-               "......In exercise of the powers conferred  by               section 3 of the Punjab Urban-Rent Restriction               Act 1949 and all other powers enabling him  in               this behalf, the 13-L1061 Sup.  Cl/72 926 Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that the  provisions of section 13 of the said Act shall not apply in respect  of decrees  for ejectment of tenants in possession of  building which satisfy the following conditions, namely : -               (a)  Buildings  constructed during  the  years               1959,  1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 are  exempted               from all the provisions of the said Act for  a               period of five years to be calculated from the               dates of their completion, and               (b)  During the aforesaid period of  exemption               suits  for ejectment of tenants in  possession               of  those buildings were or are instituted  in               civil  courts  by the  landlords  against  the               tenants  and decrees of ejectment were or  are               passed". Under  the above notification, the provisions of section  13 are  made  inapplicable to decrees in respect  of  buildings constructed  during the years specified in (a) for a  period of  5  years  to  be calculated  from  the  dates  of  their completion  provided during the said period suits  had  been instituted  by the landlords against the tenants.  There  is no  doubt,  from the facts set out above,  the  building  in respect  of which exemption from the application of  section 13 is being claimed, was completed in March 1960 and a  suit had  also been filed on 14th January 1963 before the  expiry of the period of 5 years from that date.  It is contended by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

the  learned Advocate for the appellant that the  decree  in that  suit having been passed on 14th August 1969 after  the period  of  5  years  from the  date  of  construction,  the exemption  from the restrictions placed by section  13  will not be available, because according to him not only the suit should-  be  filed  but the decree for  eviction  should  be obtained within the said period of 5 years.  This contention on  the very face of it would lead to incongruity or  would, if accepted, have the effect of nullifying the very  purpose for  which the exemption was being given.  We were  reminded with a somewhat emphatic assertion what appears to us to  be unexceptional  that  the Courts are not concerned  with  the policy  of  the  legislature or  with  the  result,  whether injurious  of  otherwise, by giving effect to  the  language used  nor is it the function of the Court where the  meaning is  clear not to give effect to it merely because  it  would lead to hardship.  It cannot, however, be gainsaid that  one of  the  duties  imposed on the  Courts  in  interpreting  a particular  provision  of law, rule or  notification  is  to ascertain  the meaning and intendment of the legislature  or of  the delegate, which in exercise of the powers  conferred on  it, has made the rule or notification in  question.   In doing so, we must always presume that the impugned provision was designed to 927 effectuate  a  particular  object or to  meet  a  particular requirement  and not that it was intended to  negative  that which it sought to achieve.  It is clear that the Government intended  to  grant certain inducements to persons  who  had ,the  means  to construct buildings by  exempting  any  such building so constructed or a period of 5 years.  The  period of  5 years could commence from the date of construction  or from   some   other  date.   Initially,   as   the   earlier notifications  would  show, that exemption of  5  years  was given from the date when the building was constructed but by the  impugned  notification it was intended  to  confer  the benefit  by  giving exemption of 5 years from  a  subsequent date,  namely,  the  date  of the  institution  of  a  suit, provided  it was instituted within a period of 5 years  from the  date  of the construction of the  building.   A  closer reading of the notification would show ,that it was intended to  clarify  and provide a workable solution in  respect  of building  constructed  in 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962  and  1963. These  buildings  had already been exempted, from  the  pro- visions  of  section 13 by two  earlier  notifications,  the first  one in 1960 giving exemption upto 31-12-1963 and  the second  in 1963 for 5 years from the date of  completion  of the  building.   It  is  clear  from  the  language  of  the notification  that  what  is  exempted  is  the  decree  for ejectment  of a tenant from the application of  section  13. The  very  purpose  of  exemption  of  buildings  from   the operation  of  section 13 was to give landlords  the  rights which  as  owners of buildings they had under  the  ordinary law,  namely,  to give them on lease act  rents  which  they thought  were remunerative and to evict tenants during  that period  without  any  fetters imposed by  the  Act.   If  no provision was made for exempting such decrees in respect  of the  exempted  buildings,  the  exemption  granted  will  be illusory.   Clause  (b), therefore, provided  for  the  time during  which that suit in which the decree has been  passed should  be filed.  The decrees passed in such suits will  be executable  free from the fetters imposed by section  13  of the Act.  It is obvious that the filing of a suit by  itself does not confer any exemption be.cause what is exempted from the  provisions of section 13 is the decree.  A suit  filed,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

therefore,  must end in a decree though that decree  may  be passed  subsequent  to  the expiry of the  5  years’  period during  which exemption from the application of  section  13 has been granted. The  learned  Advocate for the respondent  has  suggested  a construction  which  is consistent with our reading  of  the notification and that is that the words ’were’ or ’are’ used in clause (b) both in respect of the filing of the suits and the, passing of the decrees would indicate that these  suits should  have  been filed or are hereafter to  be  filed  and likewise  decrees  of  ejectment  had  been  passed  or  are hereafter to be passed.  In other words, the suits must have been already filed during the period of exemption 928 or  are to be instituted during such period.  This  language had to be used because the 5 years’ exemption in respect  of the  buildings constructed in 1959 would end in  1964  while the notification was issued in 1965. There is no question of suits being; filed in respect of these buildings  hereafter, as  such  decrees  in  suits  filed  before  1964  would  be exempted.  In respect of the buildings constructed in  1960, there would be some buildings in respect of which the  five: years’  exemption  period  would  have  expired  before  the notification  and, therefore, the suits in respect  of  such buildings  i during the relevant period in 1960 should  have been  filed  before  that  period  expired  and  where   the exemption  expires  after the notification, suits  could  be filed  thereafter  but before the’  exemption  expires.   In respect  of  1961,  1962  and 1963 there  is  of  course  no difficulty  because  there is sufficient period  for  filing suits   if  they  had  not  been  filed  by  the  time   the notification  was  issued.  Taking. the typical case  of  a, building  constructed  in  1961,  the  period  of  5  years’ exemption  would expire in 1966 and under the first part  of clause  (b) it would be open to the landlord to file a  suit for ejectment even on the last day of ;the expiry of the  ;5 years exemption, If so, it would be absurd to postulate that a  decree  would be given immediately thereafter,.  as  that would be the result, if ’the contention that :both the, suit and  the,  decree  should be passed  within  the  period  of exemption,  is  accepted.   This could not  have,  been  the intention  of the Government in publishing the  notification under section 3., It  is clear to our minds, as it was to the High Court  that under clause(b) the filing-of the suit within the period  of exemption  is  the-  only- condition that  is  necessary  to satisfy one of the requirements of the. exemption, the other requirement  being the passing of the decree in  respect  of which  no  time  has been prescribed.   If  the  decree,  as contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant, has  to be obtained within the period of 5 years, there was no  need to specify that the suit had to be filed within that  period because  the-,exemption from the requirements of section  13 is  only. in respect of the decree and not the  suit,  There was,  therefore, no need to mention about the time  of,  the filing of the suit. In  the view we have taken, the construction placed  by  the High Court is the only construction that is possible on  the language  of the notification.  This appeal  is  accordingly dismissed with costs. G.C.                               Appeal dismissed. 929