http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: N.N. ABDUL RAWOOF

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PICHAMUTHU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/02/2000

BENCH: B.N. Kirpal, M B Shah.,

JUDGMENT:

D E R

The  only question which arises for consideration in this appeal  is  as to what is the meaning of  the  expression "not  less than Rs.1200" occurring in the Timal Nadu Debt Relief  Act,  1979 (hereinafter referred to as ’the  said Act’).

The  father of the respondent had executed a usufructuary mortgage  deed in respect of a property in favour of  the appellant   herein  for  a  sum   of  Rs.   10,000/-   on 25-12-1967.   This  property was given on lease  to  some tenants  for more than 10 years.  Under the provisions of the said Act the respondents filed an application seeking direction   that  the  usufrucuary   mortgage  had   been completely  discharged.   The respondents claimed  to  be debtors within the meaning of the Act.

The appellant herein contended that the respondents could not  be regarded as debtors within the meaning of section 3 (3) of the said Act inasmuch as the rental value of the respondent’s  property was as much if not more than  what is required under the Act.  The District Munsif dismissed the respondents application which was affirmed in appeal. In  second  appeal  owever  the High Court  came  to  the conclusion  that the respondents were debtors within  the meaning  of  Section  3(3) of the Act.  It  came  to  the conclusion  that  the annual rental value of Rs.   1200/- was  not  enough to deprive them of the benefit of  being regarded as debtors.

The  admitted fact being that the annual rental value  of the  property  belonging  to the  respondents  being  Rs. 1200/-  the  question is whether the respondents  can  be regarded  as debtors.  The relevant provision of  Section 3(3) of the said Act reads as under:-

"3(3) debtor’s means any person from whom any debt is due:

Provided that a person shall not be deemed to be a debtor if he,

(i)  has  in both the financial years ending on the  31st March, 1977 and the 31st March, 1978, been assessed to --

(a)  income-tax  under the Income tax Act, 1961  (Central Act  XLIII of 1961) or under the income tax law in  force

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

in any foreign country;  or

(b)   agricultural  income-tax  under   the  Tamil   Nadu Agricultural  Income-tax  Ac, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act  V  of 1955)  or  under any law in force in any other  State  or Union territory in India) or

(ii)  has, in both the financial years ending on the 31st 1978,  been  assessed  to sales ta under the  Tamil  Nadu General  Sales 1959) or under the Central Sales Tax  Act, 1956 (Central Act LXXIV of 1956);  or

(iii)  has  in  all  the   four  half  years  immediately preceding  the 1st March, 1978 been assessed to  property or  house tax in respect of buildings or lands other than agricultural  lands,  underr  the   Tamil  Nadu  district Municipalities  Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920), the Madras  city Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (Tamil  Nadu Act  IV of 1919), the Madurai city Municipal  Corporation Act,  1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXV of 1958), the cantonments Act,  1924 (Central Act II or 1924) or any law  governing municipal  or local bodies in this State or in any  other State  or  Union Territory in India.  provided  that  the aggregate  annual  rental  valule of such  buildings  and lands wheter let out or in the occupation ofthe owner, is not  less than repees one thousand and two hundred."  the On  a  careful reading f the said provision,  it  appears that  any  person from whom debt is due is regarded as  a debtor.   The proviso to sub-section (3) exclused certain categories  of  persons from being regarded  as  debtors. According  to  sub clause (iii) a person who  owes  money shall  not be deemed to be a debtor if he has in all  the four  halft years preceeding 1st March 1978 been assessed to  property  of house tax provided the aggregate  annual value  of  such buildings or lands in not less  than  Rs. 1200/-.   Owner  of  a  property is  thus  sought  to  be excluded  from  the definition of debtor, but  not  every owner  is  excluded as persons whon own  property  having less  rental  value  will  continue  to  be  regarded  as debtors.

As  already noticed what has to be seen is as to what  is the  meaning  of  the  expression  is  "  not  less  than Rs.1200/-"  occurring inthe aforesaid proviso,  According to  the High Court the respondents would get the  benefit and  would be regarded as debtors even though the  annual rental value of the property owned by them is Rs.  1200/- The implication of the decision of the High Court is that it  is  only if the rental value was more than Rs.   1200 that the proviso would have been attracted.

As  we  read the said proviso it appears to us  that  the expression  "not  less than Rs.  1200/-" means  that  the minimum amount of rental value if it is Rs.  1,200/- then the personn would be covered by the proviso and would not be regarded as a debtor.  In stroud’s Judicial Dictionary 5th  Edn.  at page 1200 it is noted that " Where a statue prescribes  a penalty for an offence of "not less" than a stated  amount, that is the minimum penalty that justices can impose, notwithstanding that the section, prescribing the  penalty,  says that the offender "shall  be  liable" thereto;   and the power to mitigate given by the Summary Jurisdiction  Act  1879  (c.49) s.4, was in such  a  case qualified  so  that  mitigation could not go  below  such minimum (Osborn v.  Wood (1897) 1 Q.B.  197)."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

In  Raja Kulkarni & Ors.  Vs.  State of Bombay (1954  SCR 384 a question arose regarding the recognition of a trade union.   Section  13 of the Bombay Industrial  Regulation Act,  1946  provided that a representative  union  should have  a  membership of "not less than 15 per cent of  the total number of employees." Whillllllle interpreting this provision  it was observed at page 390 that "the  statute lays  down  a  minimum qualification of 15  per  cent  of membership   to  enable  the  union   to  be   called   a representative union......" After laying down the test of not  less than 15 per it was perfectly resonable "not  to allow any other union such as the appellants to interpose in  a dispute on behalf of the textile workers when  they did  not  command  the minimum percentage or  when  their membership  fell  below the prescribed  percentage."  The view  which  was expressed in Raja Kulkarni case  (Supra) clearly was that when the statute used the expression not less  than  a particular figure then that figure  is  the minimum.

In  K.P.  Varghese Vs.  I.T.O.  & Anr., (1981) 4 SCC  173 this  court  was required to interpret section 52 of  the Income  tax Act 1961 where in sub-section (2) the  Income tax  officer would get jurisdiction to acquire a  capital asses if the fair market value of that asset exceeded the full  value  of consideration "by an amount of  not  less than 15 per cent of the value declared........" Analysing this  provision it was held that according to sub-section (2)  the difference between the fair market value and the consideration  declared  will have to be 15 per  cent  or more  to  enable  the  Income  tax  Officer  to  exercise jurisdication  under that section.  To the same effect is the  decision of this court in Karnail Singh & Ors.   vs. Darshan  Singh & Ors., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 760.  Section  4 of  the  Punjab  Grampanchayat   Act,  1952  enables  the Government  to  declare  any  village  or  the  group  or contiguous  villages to constitute one or more sabha area if   they  had  population  of   "not  less  than   500." Interpreting  this  provision it was held that  what  was required  for the exercise of powers under said Section 4 was that there should be a minimum population of 500.  In other  words,  the expressing population of not less  thn 500  was  interpreted  to mean  that  minimum  population should be 500.

The High Court has referred to the decision of this Court in  The  Pioneer  Motors Pvt.  ltd.  Vs.   The  Municipal Council,  Nagercoil (1961) 3 SCR 609 where the expression was,  which was benging interpreted, "not being less than one  month." This Court held that in order that a  notice should  be  valid the expression not being less than  one month  would  mean that there must be notice of 30  clear days.   This  would be possible only if the 1st  and  the last  day  on  which  the notice is  ussed  is  excluded. Rather  than  helping the respondent in our  opinion  the said  decision  fortifies  the view which we  have  taken namely, that the period specified is the minimum perriod. Not  less than one month meant that 30 clear days  notice had to be given and it is only in order to ensure that 30 clear  days notice is given that, basing on section 9  of the General Clauses Act, it was observed that the 1st and the last date should be excluded.

Similarly,  in C.I.T.  Calcutta vs.  M/s.  Braichwaito  &

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

Co.   Ltd.   (1993)  2  SCC 262 where the  court  had  to consider  the  expression  "of a period not less  than  7 years"  it  was held that the period cannot be  even  one minute  less than 7 years.  The ratio of this decision is not  different than the decision of this court in Karnail singh,  K.P.  Varghese and Raja kulkarni (supra).  To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Saketh India Ltd.  & Ors.  vs.  India Securities Ltd.  1999 (3) SCC 1.

From  the aforesaid discussion it clearly follows that if the annual rental value of the property which is owned by a  debtor is not less than Rs.  1,200/- then he would  b