RAM LAL KAPUR AND SONS (P)LTD versus RAM NATH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 242 · Decided: 18-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

19G:! 
R 'fl1hulhi f ,,/,:o1thirtlaa 
i > Jdangat.:~'.'" 
,•wt/tll!JI 
•• 
Tht State of ~llysot1 
Ua}e111/r,todkar J, 
,<pril JR. 
~-12 
~PPRF.i\IF, COTTR't" REPORTS [l!l63] 
l!<'ncral rnlc. Th11.t, in A•ibstancc, is tho view which 
the Mysore High Court ha~ taken in tho matter 
and we think tl1at tho said view is right. 
In the n•snlt, t.hc app~al fails and is dismissed 
with costs. 
Appenl dismi.9sed. 
RA:\£ LAL KAPUR AND SONS (P)LTD. 
1.'• 
RAM NATI! AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J .. P. B. GAJF.NllRAGADKAR, TC N. 
\VAxcnoo, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR nnd 
T. L. YENIL\T,\ It.DIA An-AR, J J.) 
Suprenze Courl--Ap111ication for .eptcial lcflre-DeTaJ1-
Condo11a1i'on--;.'·cces.~ity to 
gh·c notice .1o rtspondtnt bPfore 
n1aki11q 
nrder-S11pre?ne Court R11lra, 1950, 0 .• Y.lll, r. 1. 
prnri"o ( r). 
Against the judgment of the Single Judge of the Punjab 
High Court dated January 5, 195j, in which he followed the 
de<·ision of a Di\·ision Bench holding thats. 7/\ of the Delhi 
and Ajmcr Rent Control :\ct, 194 7, \Va" unconstitutional and 
\'oid, the appellants preferred an appeal under the Letters 
Patent. 
~leanwhile the judgment or the Division Bench 
was brought up by way or appeal to the Supreme Court, and 
as the appeal was getting ready to be heard, the appellants 
nlade an application on January 3, 1959, for special leave to 
appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the 
Single Judge. 
~o notice was give"n to the respondent to 
the 
application, and special leave ,.;as granted 
cx-parte. 
'fhe Letters Patents appeal was therraftcr withdrawn by the 
appellants. \\'htn the appt>al came on for hearing in due course, 
the respondent r:liot.rd an objection to the hc<iring of the 
appeal on die ;.:ro11nd" th;\t the application for special leave 
\VclS barred by limitation, that there ''·ere no sufficient r~a­
sons for condoniu; the ldll.,:;' delay of four years, and that the 
~pecial leave g-rantecl ex-pa rte should be CC\'okccl. 
-.....,,.. 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
243 
Jleld, that, in the peculiar circumstances or the case, 
leave should not be revoked. 
Expect in very rare cases, if not invariable, the Supreme 
Court should adopt as a settle rule that the delay in making 
an application for special leave should not condoned ex-.parte 
but that before granting leave in such cases notice should 
be served on the respondent and the latter afforded an oppor· 
!unity to resist the grant of the leave. 
Desirability of the Rules of the Supreme Court being 
amended suitably pointed out. 
CIVIL APPELLATJ<J JURISDICTION~ Civil Appeal 
No. 470 of 19tll. 
Appeal by special leave from judgment and 
order dated January 5, 
1955, of the Punjab 
High Court of (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil 
Misc. l'etn. No. 71/D of 1954. 
N. O. OhaUerjee, Hardayal Hardy and N. N. 
Keswani, for the appellant . 
• 
R. S. Narula, (or the respondents Nos. 1 
to a. 
1962. April 18. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
AYYANGAR, J.-This is an appeal by special 
leave against a judgment of a learned Single Judge 
of the Punjab High Court holding that s. 7 A of the 
Delhi. and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1947 (herein· 
after called the Act), was unconstitutional as viola· 
tive of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 14 
of the Constitution. 
The first respondent Ram Nath owns a 
building in Delhi of which, among others, the 
appellant-company was a tenant. The appellant 
moved the Rent Controller, Delhi, under s. 7A of 
the Act for fixation of the fair Tent of the portion 
in its occupation. These proceedings have had a 
chequered history which it is not material to set 
out, but suffice it to say that the Rent Controller, 
J!JG3 
Roml,1l Kapur 
&; S .ns ( P) Ltd. 
v. 
R~m N th 
Ayµnzar J. 
l~G .. 
Ham/al Kapur 
cl: So1111 (f'J Ltd 
v. 
Ram Nallt. 
AyJ41tlOT J. 
241 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963) 
Delhi, computed the fair rent for the entire building 
at Rs. 565/- p. m. and the fair rent payable by the 
appellant at Rs. 146/- per month. It is necessary 
to mention that under the Act the Rent Controller 
would have had jurisdiction to entertain the appel-
lant's application for the fixation of fair rent and 
for so fixing it only if the construction of the 
building in question was completed after March 24, 
194 7, but if the construction of the building was 
completed earlier the ordinary Civil Courts and not 
the !:tent Controller would have had jurisdiction to 
determine the matter. The date of the completion 
of the first respon

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