LexBRIJ SUNDER KAPOOR ETC. ETC. versus IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E BRIJ SUNDER IeAPOOR ETC. ETC. v. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ORS. OCTOBER 27, 1988 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (Act 10 of 1972)-Provisions of Act whether applicable to cantonments situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh-Effect of Notifica- tion dated September 1, 1973 and February 17, 1982-Legislation by incorporation-Wh(lt -is-Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act 46 of 1957-Section 3-Effect of notification dated April 3, 1972 extending provisions of Uttar Pradesh Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act 3 of 1957 to cantonment areas in Uttar Pradesh. In this group of cases a common question of law that- falls for determination by the Court is whether the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to cantonments situated in the State of U .P. The High Court has answered this question in the affirma- tive. Hence these appeals by tenants. The main judgment under appeal is in the case of Brij, Sunder Kapoor v. Additional District Judge & Ors., [1980], All India Rent Cases 319. Brief facts of that case are therefore stated below showing how the said question arose. It may be mentioned that the Allahabad High Court reiterated the same view later in the case of Lekh Raj v. 4th Addi. Distt. Judge, Meerut, AIR 1982 All 265. F Jhansi is a cantonment in Uttar Pradesh. Brij Sunder Kapoor, the appellant is a tenant of Premises No. 103, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi of which Respondent No. 3 Bhagwan Das Gupta is the landlord. In 1975, the landlord filed an application before the prescribed authority under Sec- tion 21 of the Act praying that he required the premises for his personal i~ occupation and that the same be released to him. The appellant-tenant G contested the application. The application was dismissed by the pre- scribed authority but, on appeal by the landlord, it was allowed by the Additional District Judge. The tenant thereupon filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad. The appellant-tenant has therefore filed this appeal. Iii In order to judge the legality of the point urged regarding 558 ' , B.S. KAPOOR v. ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE 559 applicability of the Act to cantonment area in U.P., the Couri first referred to the history of tenancy legislation in the State of U.P. where the Rent .;lnd Eviction Control Legislation was initiated by the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Ordinance pro- mulgated on l.10.1946, followed by U.P. Act III of 1947 ·which was made retrospective w.e.f. l.10.1946. Both the Act and the Ordinance applied to cantonment area. By a later Act U.P. (Amendment) Act 44 of 1948, cantonment areas were excluded from the purview of Act III of 1947 perhaps in view of Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. Consequent upon the receipt of various representations demand- ing the applicability of Act III of 1947 to cantonment area, the State promulgated Ordinance 5 of 1949, which, however, was allowed to lapse. In the meantime the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Ahmedi Begum v. Distt. Magistrate, [1961] ALJ 669 ruled that the State Legisla- ture was in·-competent to regulate accommodation lying in cantonments since that was a subject in which Parliament alone was competent to legislate. This view was later approved by this Court in Jnder Bhushan Bose"· Rama Sundari Devi, [1970] l SCR 443. Thereupon, Parliament enacted theU.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1952) (Act IO of 1952). In 1957 Parliament enacted the cantonments (Exten- sion of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 Act 22 of 1972 gave it · retrospec- tive operation from 26.1.1950 which provided for extension to •~nton ments of State law relating to control of rent and regulation of house accommodation. As a consequence of this, Act lll of 1947 became applicable to the cantonment area, even though Act JO of 1952 was in force. In order to avoid any complication U.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Repeal Act J971 was enacted. A notification under Section 3 of Act 46 of 1957 extending Act III of 1947 to cantonments in U.P. was issued in 3.4.1972; but soori thereafter Act lll of 1947 was repealed by U .P. Act 13 of 1972 which came into operation on JS. 7 .1972 which necessitated the issuance of another n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.