THE CANTONMENT BOARD, AMBALA versus PYARELAL

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 12-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
THE CANTONMENT BOARD, AMBALA 
v. 
PYARELAL 
March 12, 1965 
[K. N. WANCHOO, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.) 
Cantonments Act (2 of 1924), ss. 256, 257 and 259-Scope of. 
311 
In 1954, the words "rent on land or buildings" were added to 
s. 250 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. After the amendment, the appel-
lant (Cantonment Board), applied under the section to the concern· 
ed Magistrate, for realisation of arrears of rent from the respondent, 
on the basis of a lease in his favour. The Magistrate issued warrants 
for attachment of the movable property of the respondent. The res-
pondent went in revision to the Sessions Judge. He made a reference 
to the High Court and the High Court set aside the Magistrate's 
order. In its appeal to the Supreme Ccurt, the appellant contended 
that, upon a correct interpretation of the section, the Magistrate had 
the power to order the recovery of rent due to the appellant. 
HELD : (Per Wanchoo and Sikri JJ.): The rent was not claim-
able by the appellant under the Act or the Rules but only under the 
lease in favour of the respondent. Therefore, s. 259(1), in so far as it 
refers to recovery of such rent by application to Magistrate, would 
not apply. 
In view of the provisions of the Act, Ca!ltonment Property Rules, 
1925, and the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, a Canton-
ment Board has power, to manage the lands or buildings vested in it 
or entrusted to its management, to lease them out and to fix rents 
therefor. But s. 259 can be utilised for realisation of arrears of rent 
on land and buildings, only if such rent is recoverable by a Board 
or a Military Estates Officer under the Act or the Rules made there-
under. The word "recoverable" means "claimable". Section 257 read 
with s. 256 is an example of the Bo;rd's power to claim rent from 
the tenant of an owner. There may be other such cases, and it is only 
in those cases, where the Act or the Rules, in terms, make the rent 
on land and buildings claimable by the Board, that the section will 
apply. But where the liability arises purely on the basis of a lease 
between the Board and the tenant, nothing in the Act or the Rules, 
particularly after r. 42 which provided for such recovery had been 
repealed, makes such rent claimable by the Board under the Act or 
the Rules. Since the repeal was in 1940 before the section was amend-
ed, it cannot be argued that the rule was repealed because of the 
amendment of the section. [344 F-H; 346 F-H] 
The view taken, however, would not affect the right of the Board 
to recover by suit, under the general law, rent of its land and build-
ings given by it on lei'se. [347 B] 
Per Mudholkar, J. (dissenting): The High Court was in error 
in setting aside the order of the Magistrate. 
What the expression "recoverable by a Board or a Military 
Estates Officer under the Act or the Rules made thereunder," in s. 259 
means is, what the Act or the Rules permit the Board to recover, or 
what the Act or the Rules permit the Military Estates Officer to re-
cover. The words "recoverable by" and "under this Act of the Rules 
made thereunder." are meant to govern "a 
Board" or "a Military 
Estates Officer." Thus under the section the power to recover money 
is exercisable by such of these two authorities as performs the duty 
or exercises the power by reason of which the liability of another 
342 
SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS 
(1965] 3 s.c.R. 
to pay the tax, rent or.any other money arises. Powers are conferred 
upon a Board under the Act read with the Cantonment Land Ad-
ministration Rules, 1937. to let out property vested in it or which is 
under its management. Where, in exercise of those powers the Board 
has let out any land or buildings, it has the right as well as the duty 
to collect the rent from the tenant. Therefore, where the liability to 
pay money arises against a person, by reason of something done by 
the Board or the Military Estates Officer, in exercise of a power or 
the performance of a duty under the Act, that liability can be enforc-
ed by the authority concerned, either by instituting a suit or by 
making an application to a Magistrate. But if the word "rent" is 
confined to money due under some express provision of the Act or 
Rules, it will lead to the curious result, that, in respect of land or 
buildings under the management of the Board, neither remedy would 
be available-though the claim for rent is ultimately traceable to 
those provisions o

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