LexDR. H. S. RIKHY AND OTHERS versus THE NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Jlam1.:i,ta11
v.
7 lu .~ta:t of
j(f!IUl//z111
I Var.. /,ao J.
JfJCJ
604
SUPREME COUH.T REPOHTS
[ I9G2
circumstances which would justify the r<'dudion of
scntc,nce of death passed on Ramrntnn.
' ~
The appeal therefore fails and is hcn·by dis-
missed.
Appeal dism·isscd.
DR. H. ::;. IUKHY AXD OTHERS
i·.
THE NE\V DELIH illCNICIPAL CO:\Ii\HTTEE
(HHC\"AXESHWAR PRASAD SrxnA, C .. J ••
P.B. GAJE:>!Dt\AGADKAI\ and itAGHl:BAR DAYAL, ,JJ.)
Jfent control-Fi.ration of sta;u.{anl rent - .1faintai1tability
of app!iw.tion--Relotion of land and tenant, •f "'"'tial-Dellti
and Ajmer Rent Comrul Act, JVJi (3S of J[}ii:!), as. :?(c), i(g),
~(j), $, J~-l'unja/, Municipal Act, 1!1/1 (l'unJab Ill uf JUJJ),
ss.18, .J7.
'l'hc respondent ?vfunicipal Con1mittee, in pursuance of a
resolution pas~d by it, called for tenders and put the re~pon.
dents, y.·hu ntade the highest offers, into pos:;cssion of certain
shops and premises on a1nounts varying from lls. 135-S..U to
Rs. 520 p<1yable for every month. After they had continued
in possession for sorne years on payrncnt of the said amounts,
dcscriUed as reuts in the rt"Ccipts, the appellants applied under
s.H of the Deliti a11d • .\.jn1er !lent Control 1\cr,
1~52, for
stand.trdis.'ltion of rent.
fherc \\·ere ad1nittedly no contracts
of transfer in , .. ·riting signed and attc .. -,tcd in rhc rnanner
prescri!Jcd by s.47 of the Punjab Mu:iicipai Act, 1911.
The
respondent took the preH1ninary objection that the applications
y.·cre 11ot n1aintainable as there was no relation of landlord and
tenant between the parties withi?1 the 1neaning of the !lent
Control Act. The trial court found in favour of the appellants
Out the I-ligh Court in the exercise of its revi:;ional jurisdiction
set aside tile decision of the trial court.
field, that it \\'as evident" from the definitions of the
terms 'landlord', 'prcrnises and tenant' contained in ss. 2(c),
2(g) and 2(i) that the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act,
19.52, that the Act applied only to such letting of premises as
created an intere~t iu the property, \vhatever its duration, and
gave rise to the relation of l;mdlord and tenant between the
parties ..
..
..
•
,(
-4
3 s,c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
605
It wa• not correct to say that the 'letting' contemplated
by the Act included not merely a transfer to a tenant but also
to a licensee, or that the use of the word 'rent' in receipts
precluded the landlord from pleading that there was no relation
of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Although s.18 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, vested
power in a Municipal Committee to enter into contracts for
the transfer of its properties, the mandatory provisions of s.47
laid down the essential conditions of the exercise of it. Those
conditions were not in any way inconSistent with the provisions
of the Rent Control Act and did not come within the mischief
of s.38 of that Act.
Crook v. Cor'f- •ation of Seaford, (1871) L.R. 6 Ch. 551
and Deo v. Taniere, (lb'.q) 116 E.R. l 144, held inapplicable.
H. Young & Co. v. The Mayor and Corporation of Royal
Leamington Spa, (1883) L.R. 8 App. Cas. 517, referred to.
Where a statute makes a specific provision that a body
corporate has to act in a particular manner that provision is
mandatory, and not directory and must be strictly followed.
Consequently, in the instant cases, no relation of land-
lord and tenant was created between the parties and the
applications must fail.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. 30 to 32 of 1959.
App~_.la irom the judgment and order dated
April 25, 1956, of the Punjab High Court in Civil
Revision Applications Nos.186, 187 and203 ofl954.
M. G. Setalva,d, Attorney-General for
India,
Anoop Singh
n,nd
R. Gop1lalcrishnan,
for
the
appellants.
G. /(. Da7ihtary,
8olicitor-Genera.l of India,
R. Ganapathi lyer and G. Gopalalcrishnan, for the
respondents.
1961. September 13. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
.
SINHA, C. J.--The question for determination
m these three appeals, on certificates of fitness
granted by the High Court of Punjab under
A;r~.133(1 )(c) of the Constitution, is whether the pro-
v1s10ns of s. 8 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control
Act (38 of 1952) (which hereinafter will be referred
1961
Dr. H. S. Rikhy
v.
The }{ew Delhi
Municipal Commilt11
Sinh• C. J.
1g6;
D,, II S. Rilhy
"
Tiu ]l/tw Dtlhi
\11mic,pal Comm•Utt
Sir.ha C. }.
G06
SUPRE!lfE COURT REPORTS
[1Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.