GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS . versus V. K. KAUSHAL

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 21-08-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA, R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
490 
GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS . 
. v. 
V. K. KAUSHAL 
August 21, 1980 
[A. C. GUPTA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Rent legislatio11-East Pu11jab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-Section 
13(2) (ii} (a)-Scope oif'-Rent' Act ext'ended tq cantonments by virtue· ·of power 
Conferred u11der Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957-
By an amendment of the 1957 Act power conferred on Central Governmerit 
to extend the Act both retrospectiv"ely and prospectively-Validity of. 
Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 
1957 empowers the. Central Government to1 extend by notification to any 
cantonment any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of 
house accommodation which was in force on the date of notification in the 
State in which the cantonment was situated. · In exercise of this power the 
Central Government by a notification dated November 21, 1969 extended the 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 to the cantonments in 
the 
States of Haryana and Punjab. 
By virtue of section 3(2) which was added 
in the 1957 Act in 1972, the Central Government enjoyed power to extend 
an enactment from a date earlier than the date of notification or from a 
future date. 
In January, 1974 the Central 'Government issued a notification 
superseding the earlier notification dated November 21, 1969 and extended 
afresh the 1949 Act to cantonments in Haryana and Punjab. 
Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the 1949 Act provides for an order of eviction 
if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has, after the commencement of 
. this Act without the written consent of the landlord has s.ublet the entire 
building or a portion thereof. 
The respondent-landlord in the instant case applied for possession of his 
premises in Ambala Cantonment under the oe{:upation of the appellant-tenant 
on' the ground that without his written consent the tenant had sub-let the shop. 
The appellant claimed that it was the joint Hindu family of which he was a 
member that was the tenant and therefore there was no question of the 
" premises being sub-let by him to· the joint family. 
The Rent Controller ordered eviction. His order was affirmed by the 
appellate 
authority. 
'The 
High 
Court 
dismissed 
the .tenant's 
revision 
application. 
Before this Court it was contended that (1) there was no evidence that 
the shop was sub-let; (2) since the 1949 Act was not in force in the Ambala 
Cantonment in 1967 wheri• the sub-letting was alleged to have taken place, 
the landlord could not avail of the provisions of that Act and 
(~) the 
notification issued in 1974 was without statutory sanction and was invalid 
because once the Central Government had exercised the power in 1969 that 
power stood e'xhausted and the Government could not invoke it again in 
1974. 
' t 
GURCHARAN SINGH v. V. K. KAUSHAL 
491 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. The finding of the High Court and the Rent Controller that 
1he tenant had sub-let tlie shop is unassailable. 
The shop, to. begin with, 
was let out to the appellant alone and not to the joint Hindu family. 
The 
business carried on by him was later taken over by . a partnership consisting 
of the father and brothers and he was no . longer the 
proprietor of the 
business. (493 G & BJ 
2(a) The 1949 Act became law operating in the Ambala Cantonment with 
effect from November 21. 1969 when the Central Government extended that 
Act to the cantonments i~ Haryana and Punjab. The sub-Jetting having taken 
place in 1967 when the 1949 Act was not in force the landlord codd not 
avail of the provisions of that Act. [494 B-D] 
(b) In the context of section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the 1949 Act the words 
«has sub-Jet" imply that the sub-Jetting must subsist on the date when th!! 
Act came intO force. 
The words "has sub-let", if they are unqualified by 
any reference to the commencement of the Act, refer to a transaction of 
sub-Jetting entered into before or after commencement of the Act and in 
a case where sub-letting has been effected before the commencement of the Act 
the sub-lease must subsist, and the rights under ·it continue to flow, on the 
date of the commencement of the Act. In the present case, section 13(2)(ii)(a) 
confines its scope to sub-leases effected after the commencement of the Act, that 
is to say, transactions of sub-letting effected after the date when the Act 
came into 
force. 
For 
that reason, a sub-Jetting effected 
before 
the 
commencement of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.