LexPT. RISHIKESH AND ANR. ETC. versus SMT. SALMA BEGUM ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
•
PT. RISHIKESH AND ANR. ETC.
v.
SMT. SALMA BEGUM ETC. ETC.
MAY 2, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA AND
S. SAGHIR AHMED, JJ.]
Constitution of India-Article 254-fl.epugnancy-meaning of-State law
•
and the Central Law should occupy the same field or operate in col/ison
C course.
D
E
Constitution of India-Article 25<}-{)istinction between "making" and
"commencement" of an Act-State law repugnant only when made prior to
the Central law--"1nade
11 cannot be substitu.ted with ''commencement
11
Ct;nstitution of India-Article 254-Amendment to Order 15 Rule 2 of
CPC by the Parliamenf-State Act not amending Order 15 Rule 2 of
CPC-Held there is no repugnancy-U.P. Civil Laws (Reform and Amend-
ment) Act, 1976.
Words and phrases-
11made" and
11commencement
11--Meaning of
U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976-,4mendment
to Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC-Tenants who fails to pay admitted rent after order
of the court form a distinct class-Striking of defence of such tenants has
nexus to the protection of landlords which is the object of the Act-Held : not
F discriminatory-Article 14-Constitution of India.
..,_ -
CPC Central (Amendment) Act, 1976-Section 97( 1)--0perates
retrospectively to affect even a vested right.
CPC Central (Amendment) Act, 1976-Nature of-Whether amending,
G repealing or consolidating Act.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 15 Rule 5--Constitutional
validity of-Held, it is neither repugnant under Article 254 nor discriminatory
under Article 14-Articles 14 and 254-Constitution of India.
H
The legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh amended Order 15 of
1062
l
PT. RJSHIKESH v. SALMA BEGUM
1063
the Code of Civil Procedure by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act 37 A
of 1972 and added Rule 5 to Order 15. The said Rule 5, in order to restore
the equilibrium between the interest of landlord and the tenant, provided
for striking off defence of the tenant on his failure to deposit the admitted
rent on or before the first hearing of the suit for eviction. In September
1976, the Parliament enacted CPC Central (Amendment) Act, 104 of 76 B
which received the assent of the President on 9.9.1976 and was published
in the Central Gazette on the same date. In the meanwhile, the State
Legislature of Uttar Pradesh enacted U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and
Amendment) Act 57/76 on 13.12.1976 adding three explanations to Sub-
rule (1) to Rule 5 of order 15 which was reserved for consideration of the
President and received the assent of the President on 30.12.1976 and C
brought into force with effect from 1.1.1977. The CPC Central (Amend-
ment) Act, on the other hand became operative with effed from 2.1.1977.
The appellants, who were tenants failed to deposit rent in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 15 of CPC and therefore their
defence was struck off by the court of small causes. Therefore the appel- D
!ants challenged the vfres of Order 15 Rule 5 on the ground that it was
repugnant to the CPC Central (Amendment) Act and became void by
operation of clause (1) of Article 254 of .the Constitution as by enacting the
Central (Amendment) Act, the Parliament intended that CPC should be
uniform throughout India. The appellants also urged that Rule 5 of Order E
15 violates Article 14 as it prejudices the interest of an honest litigant who
admits arrears of rent.
On reference to the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, the Full
Bench held that the State Act was not in conflict with the Central Act and
was not void under Article 254 (1) of the Constitution. The High Court F
held that since the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976
received the assent of the President on 30.12.1976 whereas the CPC Central
(Amendment) Act, 1976 received the assent on 9.9.1976, the State Act was
later in point of time and therefore, not repugnant to the Central Act.
G
Hence the present appeals by certificate under Article 133.
Dismissing the appeals, this court
HELD : 1.1. The conditions precedent to bring about repugnancy
should be that there must be an amendment made to the Central Act and H
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
A the previous amendment made by a State Legislature !'r a provision made
by the High Court must occupy the same field and operate in a collision
course. [1080-B]
1.2. If the Central Law and the State law or a provision made by the
High Court occupy the same field or operate in collision course, the State
B Act or Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.