LexM/S PUNJAB TIN SUPPLY CO.,CHANDIGARH ETC. ETC. versus THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A . . .. ,.B . , 428 ·_'. J .. M/S PUNJAB TIN SUPPLY:C,O.,. · CHANDIGARH ETC. ETC. Y. THE CENTRAL. GOVERNMENT & "ORS. c October !20; i983 • . [A.P. SEN; AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.) ' . . The ~.Ji Punjab U1ban• Rent Restriction Act~ 1949 a;·mmOdijied by the · East Punjab Urban Renl'Restriction Act (ExtensiOn- to -Chandigarh) ·Act. -1974- . Sec • .i-VaJiditj of. Whether Union Territory 0/ Chandigarh, Home,. -Department: . Notification. No. J52-LD-7J/602 dated January Jl, 1973 as !"odified by . notification3 dated September 24, .197J and Sept. 24, 1974 issued. under uc •. 3. yaJfd Wheiher Noi_ificationJ ~perate p~ospec~ivety: .- - · - ,. .. .. - ' ,... ' D . , lmer;r~t;aion o/St~iutes-Rul~ 0/_:_0bjec"iand ~olicy of statute -,,eed_ Mt a/Ways bl strictly confined''! preamble and provfalo~ of statu_~e. a _ . Inierpretiztfon of. ·statutes-Rule of-Whether a statute ·Operates ·.retros- . · _ ) pecti1el~Does not dep~nd prlmaTily"on language ·of -$ta,t~te-Court to .. ·ue J $urroundinz circumstances. - '! _ ·• ~~ ~n~~in~- ~ti~_ ~~st P~fab- Urban ·~~~t- Restr-iction.; Act (&tension to - , Chandigarh)_Act, 1974 the Parliam-ent brought- into forCe _with effeet from '~ November4, 1972, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act; 1949 which Was ·in force iii the foriner State of -Punjab with the modifications Set put in its , :schedule in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and_validatCd an .aciions -take·n; notifiCations issued and orders made or purported to _have bi!eQ taken, 'is!Ued ....., or made under the 1949 Act. Sec. 3 of the Act or 1949 provided that. the Central Uoveroment may .exempt. any building· from the applicatioq of-. the Act. -Under that scctioi;i the Chief Commissioner of Chandigarh issUed a notification dated January 31, 1973 stating that the prOvisionS:.of the Act shall not app'Jy to . buildin2S,-constructed in the urban area ·Or Chandigarh, for' a period •of five years with effect from the date the sewerage conn~ction is granted in resPect or atic:h buildings. This notification was modified by notification_s dated ·SCptembCr· ;---...::-. - 24, 1973 and Sept. 24, 1974: The petitioners questioned the validity of s. 3 or the. Act ·or 1949 and notificatiot]s issued thereunder on the grounds that s. 3 suffered from the vice or excessive delegatiori or legislative power; that the exemption ·- . granted- by' the notificatiori dated January 3~ 1973 as modified b:Y the later notifications was outside-the scope of the object and poUcy of the Act 3.nd at the sal:ne time discriminatory, and that the power tO issue notifications under s. 3 of · the ACt could be exercised _by the_ Cetitral Government only. It was_ also urged th&t the notification bad prospective operation. · - ' .• .J: 1' . ' - ' .. • PUNJAB TIN CO. V, CENTRAi> GOVT. 429 Dismfssina: the petitions, HELD : Section 3 of.the Act does not suffer froqi the vice of ,excessive delegation of legislative power. and is also not violative .of Art. 1'4 of the Constitution; [439 FJ P.J. Irani v. The State of Madras, [1962) 2 S.C.R. 169; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanhaiyala/, (1970) 15 'M.P.L.J. 973; and Sadhu Singh v. Th~ District• Board, Gurdaspur & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2594of1966 decided on October 29, 1968) referred to. ' The pr~amble and .the provisions of a stat.ute nd doubt assist the Court · in finding out its object 80d policy but hs Object and policy need not always be B strictJy confined to its pream.ble aild th_e provisions contaitieQ therein, [440 DJ C In the instant case, the object and policy of the Act appears tO be slightly wider than some of the key provisions of the Act namely fixation 'of rair rent &nd prevention of uitreasonable eViction of tenants. The-policy and- o'bject of the Act generally is mitigation of ~ardship of tenants. Such mitigation can be attained by several measures, one of then1 being creation of incentive to 'persons with caPital Who are otherwise reluctant to invest in the construction of new buildings in view of the chilling effect of the· rent control laws.' As a patt of the said scheme in order to persuade them to invest in -the cOnstruction of new . 01,1ildings exemption, is granted io 'them from the operation -of. the Act for a •·short period of five years so that whatever may be the hardship ·for· tbe time • being to the tenants of the new bpildings, the new building& so constructtd may after the expiry of the period of exemption be av
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.