Civil Appeal No 840 of 1978
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 14th December 1977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No 61374
Govind Das Mrs Urmila Kapoor and Mrs Shobha Dixit for the Appellant
MN Phadke NC Jain SK Dhingra and SL Sethia for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK J
This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana dismissing a tenants  revision petition
under section 155 East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 arising out of eviction proceedings
The respondent as landlord applied under section 132 ii a of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 for the possession of a shop forming part of the premises No 6283 Nicholson Road
Ambala Cantonment occupied by the appellants
He claimed that the shop had been let out to the first appellant Gurcharan Singh but that he had without the written consent of the respondent sublet the shop to his father Gurdayal Singh and his brothers Anoop Singh and Jagjit Singh
The appellants denied that the shop had been sub let and pleaded that they along with their father constituted a joint Hindu family and that the joint Hindu family was the tenant of the shop
The Rent Controller found in favour of the respondent and passed an order of eviction which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Authority
The appellants applied in revision and the High Court has by its judgment and order dated 14th December 1977 dismissed the revision application
The first contention of the appellant is that there is no evidence that the shop was sub let and the finding is misconceived in  point of law
493 It is sufficient to point out that the Rent Control Authorities and the High Court have concurrently found that the shop was let out to Gurcharan Singh and not to the joint Hindu family and that Gurcharan Singh sub let it in 1967 to a partnership firm consisting of his father and brother
The finding is supported by ample evidence on the record
The material shows that the shop was let out to Gurcharan Singh alone and the business carried on by him was later taken over by a partnership consisting of his father and brothers
He was no longer proprietor of the business and merely extended his assistance under a power of attorney enabling him to act for the partnership
The execution of the power of attorney establishes that he was not a partner
It appears that Gurcharan Singh individually carried on some other business but there is no evidence to show that business was lodged in the shop under consideration
The material before us demonstrates that the shop was occupied exclusively by the partnership firm and that Gurcharan Singh was left with no right to possession therein
The evidence is incompatible with the case now set up before us that the partnership was merely a licensee of Gurcharan Singh
Learned counsel for the appellants relies on Hira Singh  Ors
vs Banarsi Dass
That case
however was one of a joint tenancy and it was held that the mere circumstance that one of the co tenants had ceased living in the premises for some time could not lead to the inference that he had sub let it to the other co tenants
The evidence Showed that all the co tenants were carrying or business in partnership although one of them was not disclosed was a partner
Some reliance was placed on the circumstance that the licence for carrying on the business stood in the name of Gurcharan Singh
As the evidence plainly shows the licence was issued to him when he was carrying on the business and subsequently although it continued to stand in his name it was
used by the partnership firm and no inquiry was ever made by the licensing authority when renewing it to determine whether the original holder of the licence was still carrying on the business
We are of opinion that the finding of the High Court and the Rent Control authorities that Gurcharan Singh had sub let the shop is unassailable
Learned counsel for the appellants contends next that the ground sub letting taken under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 is not available to the respondent because on the date when the sub letting took place that Act was not in force in the Ambala Cantonment
Now it appears that section 3 of the Cantonments Extension 494 of Rent Control Laws Act 1957 empowered the Central Government to extend by notification to any cantonment with such restrictions and modifications as it thought fit any enactment relating to the t control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which was in force on the date of the notification in the State in which the cantonment was situated
In exercise of that power the Central Government issued Notification No SRO 7
dated 21st November 1969 extending the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 to cantonments in the States of Haryana  Punjab
Consequently with effect from 21st November
1969 the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act became a law operating in the cantonment
Section 13 2 ii a of the Act provides for an order of eviction if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has after commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord a transferred his right under the lease or sub let the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof
 It is clear that the tenant falls within the mischief of this sub clause only if he has effected the transfer or sub letting after the commencement of the Act
The Act commenced to operate in the Ambala Cantonment on 21st November 1969
In regard to that territory it was not law before that date but only on and from that date
It is clear that the sub letting in the present case having been effected in 1967 was not made after the commencement of the Act
Learned counsel for the respondent urges that section 132iia of the Act uses the words has sub let and submits that sub letting is a continuous process and that even though in the present case it may be said to have commenced before the Act came into force it continued in operation after the Act was brought into force
Now when section 132iia speaks of a tenant who has sub let it refers to a tenant who has entered into a transaction of sub letting
And the transaction of sub letting is referable to a single point of time
It is the moment when the act effecting the sub letting is completed
That transaction is located at a fixed point
What happens then is that a flowing stream of rights and obligations issues from the sub letting
Those rights continue as long as the sub lease subsists
but they have their source in the definitive transaction of sub letting located in a single fixed point of time
We may add that in the context of section 132iia of the Act
the words has sub let imply that the sub letting must subsist on the date when the Act comes into force
The reason is apparent from the object of the Act which is to protect the personal occupation of the tenant
The protection is not extended to a tenant who has abandoned occupation of the premises and has passed possession to another even though by way of a sub tenancy
495 The protection against eviction is not available for permitting a tenant to make a profit out of his tenancy rights by sub letting the premises
Therefore the words has sub let unqualified by any reference to the commencement of the Act
refer to a transaction of sub letting entered into before or after the commencement of the Act and in the 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 however section 132iia of the Act 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 letting effected before the commencement of the Act cannot be brought within the mischief of section 132iia even though it continues to subsist on or after the commencement of the Act
In Goppulal vs Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji  Anr
on which learned counsel for the respondent relies the relevant provision did not include the words after the commencement of this Act
and therefore took within its scope a sub letting transacted before the coming into force of the relevant Act
In our opinion the respondent cannot avail of section 132iia of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on the basis that it was brought into operation in the Ambala Cantonment by the Notification of 1969
We find however that the Cantonment Extension of Rent Control Laws Act 1957 was amended by Act No XXII of 1972
Upon amendment section 12 of the principal Act declared that the principal Act would be deemed to have come into force on 26th January 1950
The words on the date of the Notification were omitted in section 31 of the principal Act and were deemed always to have been omitted so that under section 3 the Central Government must be deemed to have been empowered always to extend to a cantonment any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation in force in the State even as it stood before the date of the Notification
This amendment was made in order to accord with the further amendment made by inserting sub section 3 in section 3 of the principal Act which provided that where an enactment in force in any State relating to the control of rent and regulations of house accommodation was extended to a cantonment from a date earlier than the date of such extension was made such enactment as in force on such earlier date would apply to such cantonment
Section 32 was added in the principal Act and it provided 496 2
The extension of any enactment under sub section
1 may be made from such earlier or future date as the Central Government may think fit Provided that no such extension shall be made from a date earlier than a the commencement of such enactment or b the establishment of the cantonment or c the commencement of this Act whichever is later
 Subject to the proviso the Central Government now enjoyed power to extend an enactment from a date earlier than the date of the notification or from a future date
Subsequently the Central Government issued Notification No SRO 55 dated 24th January 1974 superseding the earlier Notification No SRO 7 dated 21st November 1969 and extending the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act afresh to cantonments in the States of Haryana and Punjab
Section 13 of that Act was modified to read that except for section 19 it would be deemed to have come into force on 26th January
The result is that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act will be deemed to have come into force in the Ambala Cantonment on 26th January 1950
And if that be so the sub letting effected in 1967 must plainly be regarded as having been made after the commencement of that Act
Two points are raised on behalf of the appellants against that conclusion
The first is that the power under section 3 of the having been exercised once that is to say by the Notification dated 21st November 1969 the power of extension stood exhausted and could not be availed of again and therefore the Notification dated 24th January 1974 was without statutory sanction and invalid
We are referred to Lachmi Narain etc etc
vs Union of India  Ors
That was a case where this Court held that a Notification under section 2 Part States Laws Act 1950 having been issued in 1951 by the Central Government extending the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act 1941 to the State of Delhi the power given by section 2 exhausted itself on the extension of the enactment and could not be exercised again to enable the issue of a fresh Notification modifying the terms in which the Bengal Act was extended
The case is clearly distinguishable
The power under which the Notification dated 24th January 1974 has been issued is a separate and distinct power from that under which the Notification dated 21st November 1969 was made
The power now exercised passed into the  497 1957 when it was amended in 1972
In its nature and quality it is not identifiable with the power vested under the unamended Act
A power conferred by statute is distinguished by the character and content of its essential components
If one or more material components characterising the power cannot be identified with the material components of another they are two different and distinct powers
Although broadly the power envisaged in section 3 of the amended is a power of extension even as it was under the unamended Act there is a vital qualitative difference between the two
The power under the unamended Act was a limited power
It could operate prospectively only
There was no choice in the matter
After amendment the Act provided for a power which could be exercised retrospectively
The power extended to giving retrospective effect to an enactment in force in the State in the form in which that enactment was in force on the date on which the extension was made
It was a power whose reach and cover extended far beyond what the power under the unamended Act could achieve
We are of the view that in issuing the Notification dated 24th January 1974 and thereby extending the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to the Ambala Cantonment retrospectively with effect from 26th January 1950 the Central Government exercised a power not available to it when it issued the Notification dated 21st November 1969
The contention that the issue of the Notification of 24th January 1974 amounted to a further exercise of power conferred by section 3 of the  under which the earlier Notification was issued is without force and must be rejected
The second point raised is that in clause c of the proviso to section 32 of the  which speaks of the commencement of this Act the words this Act refer to the Cantonments Extension of Rent Control Laws Amendment Act 1972 which commenced to operate from 2nd June 1972
The argument is founded in fallacy
The words this Act refer to the principal Act in which sub section 32 is inserted by virtue of the amendment and that Act by virtue of section 22 as amended must be deemed to have come into force on 26th January 1950
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Section 3 of the empowers the Central Government to 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 32 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 tho earlier notification dated November 21 1969 and extended afresh the 1949 Act to cantonments in Haryana and Punjab
Section 132iia 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 sublet 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 occupation 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 when the sub letting was alleged to have taken place the landlord could not avail of the provisions of that Act and 3 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 exhausted and the Government could not invoke it again in 1974
491 Dismissing the appeal  HELD 1 The finding of the High Court and the Rent Controller that the tenant had sub let the 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  B 2a The 1949 Act became law operating in the Ambala Cantonment with affect from November 21 1969 when the Central Government extended that Act to the cantonments in Haryana and Punjab
The sub letting having taken place in 1967 when the 1949 Act was not in force the landlord could not avail of the provisions of that Act
494B D b In the context of section 132iia of the 1949 Act the words has sub let imply that the sub letting must subsist on the date when the Act came into force
Tho words has sub let if they are unqualified by any reference to the commencement of the Act refer to a transaction of sub letting entered into before or after commencement of tho 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 now on the date of the commencement of the Act
In the present case section 132iia 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 letting effected before the commencement of the Act cannot be brought within the mischief of the section even though it continues to subsist on or after the commencement of the Act
494H 495A B Goppulal vs Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji  Anr
 held inapplicable
3a By virtue of tho amendments made to tho 1957 Act in 1972 the 1949 Act will be deemed to have come into force in the Ambala cantonment on January 26 1950
Therefore the sub letting effected in 1967 must plainly be regarded as having been made after the commencement of that Act
496D E b In issuing the notification dated January 24 1974 and thereby extending the 1949 Act to the Ambala Cantonment retrospectively with effect from January 26 1950 tho Central Government exercised a power not available to it when it issued tho earlier notification of November 21 1969
The contention that the notification of January 1974 amounted to a further exercise of the same power conferred by section 3 of the 1957 Act is without force
497 D E The power under which the notification of January 1974 had been issued is a separate and distinct power from that under which the earlier notification was made
The power now exercised passed into tho 1957 Act when it was amended in 1972
In its nature and quality it is not identifiable with the power vested under the unamended Act
A power conferred by statute is distinguished by the character and content of its essential components
If one or more material components characterising the power cannot be identified with the material components of another they are two different and distinct powers
The power under the unamended Act was a limited Dower 492 which could operate prospectively only while the power after amendment was retrospective
It was a power whose reach and cover extended far beyond what the power under the unamended Act could achieve
497 A C c The words this Act occurring in the commencement of this Act in clause c of the proviso to section 32 of the 1957 Act refer to the principal Act in which sub section 2 was inserted in section 3 and not to the Amendment Act of 1972
By virtue of section 22 as amended it is the principal Act which must be deemed to have come into force on January 26 1950 497 G