ivil Appeal No 2548 of 1983 From the Judgment and Order dated 15982 of the Allaha bad High Court in Civil Misc
WP No 14807 of 1981
Pramod Swarup for the Appellant
RB Mehrotra for the Respondents
562 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
This is an Appeal by Special Leave against a judgment and order dated September 15 1982 delivered by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No 14807 of 1981
The appellant before us is the tenant of the shop in question
Respondent No 1 is a proforma party namely the Prescribed Authority and respondent No 2 is the landlord of the building containing the shop in question situated at Mandi Harbansganj Dhampur
We propose to refer to the appel lant as the tenant and respondent No 2 as the landlord
In 1959 the landlord filed an application under section 31 of the UP Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the UP Rent Act of 1947 for the eviction of the tenant from the said shop
The said application was made on the ground that the landlord wanted to demolish the shops in the building including the said shop and in their place wanted to construct new shops and also to construct the residential portion on the first floor
In the new building the accommodation would be much larger and apart from shops even residential premises would be constructed
In paragraph 7 of the application the landlord gave an assurance undertaking that the applicant will give the new shop to the second party after the new shops are constructed on a reasonable rent
 It is common ground that the applicant referred to was the landlord and the second party referred to was the tenant
This applica tion was contested by the tenant along with other tenants against whom also the similar applications were filed
The application was made to the District Magistrate within the meaning of the said expression in sub section d of section 2 of the UP Rent Act of 1947
The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer who acted as District Magistrate with in the connotation of the said term under the said Act about which there is no dispute granted the permission and rejected the contentions of the tenant
In the order grant ing the permission which order
is dated February 27 1980 the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer noted that the landlord was ready to give the newly constructed shops to the tenants on a reasonable rent
Taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances including the aforesaid fact of the assurance cure undertaking given by the land lord the permission to evict the tenant was granted
Against this decision all the tenants including the tenant herein filed revision petitions which were dismissed by the Commissioner Rukhilkand and Division Bareilly
The tenants applied by way of further revision to the State Governor under Section 7 F of the said UP Rant Act of 1947
In disposing of the revision 563 petitions the Special Secretary who disposed of the same in the name of the Governor of the State of UP noted that the landlord had given an undertaking to the tenants that they would be given newly constructed shops on standard rent and that during the period taken for construction alterna tive accommodation would also be given to them
Thereafter the landlord filed a suit on the basis of the aforesaid permission for eviction of the tenant
During the pendency of the suit the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act 1972 hereinafter re ferred to0 as the UP Rent Act of 1972 came into force
The UP Rent Act of 1947 was repealed by subsection 1 of section 43 of the UP Rent Act of 1972 save and except to the extent provided in the savings clause set out at subsec tion 2 of that section
Some amendments were made to section 432 rr in the UP Rent Act of 1972 by the U P
Act of XXXIII of 1976 whereby the landlords who had on the basis of the permissions granted to them under section 31 of the UP Rent Act of 1947 instituted suits for the evic tion of their tenants were given the right to apply for eviction of their tenants straightaway if the permission granted to them under section 31 of the UP Rent Act of 1947 had been obtained on any ground specified in subsec tion 1 or subsection 2 of section 21 of the UP Rent Act of 1972
Taking advantage of these provisions the landlord filed an application for an order of eviction against the tenant on the ground that the permission had been obtained by the landlord on the ground specified in clause b of section 211 of the UP Rent Act of 1972 and hence he was entitled to an order of eviction straightaway under section 432 rr of the UP Rent Act of 1972
The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application of the land lord on the ground that the permission obtained by him was a conditional permission and it could not come into operation unless the landlord had complied with the offer made by him before the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer namely to make available to the tenant an alternative shop
It was held by the Prescribed Authority that till that condition was satisfied by the landlord he could not claim the evic tion of the tenant under section 432 rr of the UP Rent Act of 1972
Against this order the landlord preferred the aforesaid writ petition which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by the impugned judgment
The learned Judge took the view that the Prescribed Authority was bound to allow the application of the landlord under section 432 rr of the UP Rent Act of 1972 and order eviction
It was held by the learned Judge that the ground on which permission was granted by the Rent Controller and Eviction Authorities under the UP Rent Act of 1947 fell within clause b of sub section 1 of section 21 of the UP 564 Rent Act of 1972 and hence the Prescribed Authority under the Act of 1972 had no jurisdiction to embark upon any fresh enquiry as to the nature of the permission
It was held by the learned Judge that the finding of the Rent Control authorities was that the building was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and hence the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to impose any condition before granting an eviction order
It was held by him that the Prescribed Authority had failed to exercise its statutory duty to order the eviction of the tenant
The learned Single Judge directed the Prescribed Authority to pass an order of eviction against the tenant
It is this judgment of the learned Single Judge which is impugned before us by Shri Parmod Swaroop learned counsel for the appellant
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the decision of the prescribed Authority to decline the prayer for eviction made by respondent No 2 was justified in view of the undertakings given by respondent No 2 when the permission to file a suit for eviction was given under the UP Rent Act of 1947 and the High Court was in error in upsetting the decision of the Prescribed Authority
It was on the other hand contended by MrMehrotra learned counsel for respondent No 2 that in view of the provisions of section 432 rr of the UP Rent Act of 1972 the Pre scribed Authority had no jurisdiction to go behind the permission and was bound to give an order for eviction unconditionally as held by the High Court in its impugned judgment
Although the judgment of the Prescribed Authority which was set aside by the High Court is not before us it appears clear from the impugned judgment that the Prescribed Authority took the view that the permission granted to respondent No 2 to file the suit for eviction was a condi tional one and was operative only on the performance of the condition incorporated in the undertaking given by the landlord
We are of the view that the entire argument before us proceeds to a large extent on a misapprehension
However before dealing with the rival submissions we propose to refer to the relevant provisions of the aforestated two Acts very briefly
UP Rent Act of 1947 was a temporary measure enacted with the object of continuing during a limited period the powers to control the letting and the rent of residential and non residential accommodation and to prevent the evic tion of tenants from the same
The relevant portion of sub section 1 of section 3 of that Act runs as follows 565 3
Restrictions on eviction
1 Subject to any order passed under sub section 3 no suit shall without the permis sion of the District Magistrate be filed in any civil court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds Thereafter clauses a to g set out the grounds on which a suit for eviction could be filed without the permission of the District Magistrate
Sub section 2 of section 3 pro vides for an application for revision against the order of the District Magistrate granting or refusing the grant of permission to file a suit for eviction of a tenant to the Commissioner
Sub section 4 provides that the order of the Commissioner made in such revision application as set out above shall be subject to any order passed by the State Government under section 7F of that Act
Sub section d of section 2 of the UP Rent Act of 1947 gives an inclusive definition of the term District Magistrate red states that the said term would include an officer authorised by the District Magistrate to perform any of his functions under that Act
The UP Rent Act of 1972 was enacted to make provisions in the interest of the general public for the regulation of letting and rent of and the eviction of tenants from certain classes of buildings situated in the urban areas
Section 21 of this Act provides for release of a building under occupation of the tenants that is very briefly for the eviction of tenants from the buildings under tenancy and also inter alia prescribes grounds on which such eviction can be ordered
It may be mentioned that eviction of tenants is not permitted except on prescribed grounds
Section 43 of the UP Rent Act of 1972 provides for repeal and savings
Under sub section 1 of that sec tion the UP Rent Act of 1947 is repealed
The relevant portion of sub section 2 of section 43 of the UP Rent Act of 1972 which is in the nature of a savings provision runs as follows 43 Repeal and savings
1 x x x x 2 Notwithstanding such repeal X X X rr where any permission referred to in section 3 of the 566 old Act has been obtained on any ground speci fied in subsection 1 or sub section 2 of section 21 and has become final either before the commencement of this Act or in accordance with the provisions of this sub section after the commencement of this Act whether or not a suit for the eviction of the tenant has been instituted the landlord may apply to the prescribed authority for his eviction under section 21 and thereupon the prescribed authority shall order the eviction of the tenant from the building under tenancy and it shall not be necessary for the pre scribed authority to satisfy itself afresh as to the existence of any ground as aforesaid and such order shall be final and shall not be open to appeal under section 22
The provisos to the clause are not relevant for our purpose
The main contention of the learned counsel for respond ent No 2 before us was that in view of the provisions of clause rr of sub section 2 of section 43 of the UP Rent Act of 1972 once the permission to file the suit for eviction was granted by the authorities concerned under the UP Rent Act of 1947 and that permission was on a ground specified in sub section 1 or sub section 2 of section 21 of the UP Rent Act of 1972 it was not open to the Prescribed Authority before which the application for evic tion was filed to reconsider the same
The Prescribed Au thority in the present case has tried to analyse that permission and declined to grant the decree for eviction on the basis that the permission was conditional and the land lord was not willing to carry out those conditions
In our view the question of the authority under the UP Rent Act of 1947 having imposed any condition does not arise at all
A plain reading of the order of the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer Bijnor as well as the orders of the Com missioner in revision and that of the State Government makes it clear that the permission given to the landlord to file the suit was not subject to any condition at all
At the same time the judgment of the Rent Controller clearly shows that one d the circumstances which constituted the basis for the grant of the permission to file the suit for eviction was that the landlord gave an assurance cum undertaking to give newly constructed shops to the tenants sought to be evicted including the tenant before us and that the landlord also gave a similar assurance to give alternative accommoda tion to the tenant during the period which would be taken in completing the new construction
As we have already pointed out the petition for permission to file a suit flied before the Rent Controller by the landlord in terms con tained an 567 assurance cum undertaking that the landlord would give the newly constructed shops after the new shops were constructed to the tenants sought to be evicted on a reasonable rent
It appears that the offer to provide for alternative accommoda tion during the period when the new construction was coming up was made by the landlord in the course of the hearing before the said Eviction Officer Bijnor
The revision petition against that said order was dismissed by the Com missioner Rukhilkhand Division as we have already pointed out earlier
The order passed under section 7F of the UP Rent Act of 1947 by the State Government also dismissed the revision petition preferred by the tenant to the State Government
The order of the State Government which was passed on behalf of the Governor of the State by the Special Secretary however clearly notes that the landlord had given an undertaking to the tenants that they would be giving the newly constructed shops to them on standard and that during the period taken up in completing the new con struCtion alternative accommodation would also be given to them
However no condition in this connection was imposed by the State Government on the permission to file the suit for eviction
Under these circumstances we propose to proceed on the assumption that the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Prescribed Authority under the UP Rent Act of 1972 had no jurisdiction to go behind the permission granted by the relevant authorities under the UP Rent Act of 1947 for the filing of the eviC tion suit
However it appears to us that the High Court was with respect in error in not taking into account the undertakings cumassurance given by the landlord to the tenant in his application for permission to file a suit as well as in the course of the hearing before the aforemen tioned authorities
We do not find anything in the provi sions of seCtion 432 rr of the UP Rent Act of 1972 which would enable the landlord to evade his duty to comply with the undertakings cum assurances given by him
These undertakings cum assurances givenby the landlord certainly formed part of the basis on which the permission to file the suit for eviCtion was unconditionally given to him
It is but fair that the court should see to it that the tenant is not deprived of the benefit of the undertakingscum assur ances
In fact no good reason has been shown as to how the landlord can justly claim that he is no longer bound by the undertakingscum assurances given by him as set out earlier
In these circumstances we set aside the order of the High Court and pass the following order in its place 1 We direct that the Prescribed Authority Nagina District Bijnor to pass an order of eviCtion against the appellant tenant before us but the  Prescribed Authority will give the necessary directions or 568 orders to respondent No 2 landlord to provide alternative accommodation to the appellant during the period when the new construction is coming up and also pass appropriate orders for ensuring that after the new construction is completed a comparable shop is given to the appellant herein
2 In order not to delay the construction of the new shops the Prescribed Authority may provide that in case the landlord fails to or is unable to provide alternative accommodation to the appellanttenant during the period when the new construction is being completed he shall pay a certain sum as fixed by the Prescribed Authority per month to the appellant tenant which would be reasonably adequate to enable that tenant to obtain alternative accommodation for that period
For the aforesaid purpose the Prescribed Authority may give such directions as it may think fit
Before parting with the matter we may refer to two decisions which were cited before us
The first of these is the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Asa Singh vs BD Sanwal  Ors AIR 1969 All 474
The Full Bench of that High Court inter alia held in that case that while granting permission under section 3 of the UP Rent Act of 1947 the District Magistrate was bound to consider also the need of the tenant for the accommodation if such a case is set up by the tenant
This case was cited by the learned counsel for the tenant
Learned counsel for respond ent No 2 on the other hand cited the decision of another Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bansilal Sahu vs The Prescribed Authority  Anr AIR 1980 All 194 which very briefly stated laid down that the Prescribed Authority under the UP Rent Act of 1972 is bound while acting under clause rr of section 432 of the said Act irrespective of the occurrence of subsequent events to order eviction according to the permission granted by the Prescribed Au thority under section 3 of the UP Rent Act of 1947
In our view it is not necessary for us to enter into a discussion of either of the authorities because they do not touch upon the question which has arisen before us namely enforcing the undertakings cumassurances given by the land lord in obtaining the permission under section 3 of the UP Rent Act of 1947
The Appeal is allowed to the extent aforestated
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs
RNJ Appeal allowed


Summary:
Under Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act 1890 prior to its substitution by the Amendment Act 1961 the choice of forum for filing suits for compensation for loss de struction damage deterioration or non delivery of goods etc
carried by the Railways was regulated by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 18 of the  as the case may be
However the new section besides making specific reference to a certain class of suits to be dealt with under the section and identifying the Railways Administrations which were liable to the claim also specifically provided the places where such suits may be instituted
The appellants filed two separate suits in the courts at Alipore and Calcutta for recovery of certain amounts from the Railways for short deliveries of consignments booked by them
The respondent contended that in view of Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act 1890 the trial courts concerned had no jurisdiction
The trial courts rejected the objection and decreed the suits
In the revisions filed by the respondent the Full Bench of the High Court by its common order held that the trial courts had no jurisdiction
It was of the view that the new Section 80 was a complete and self contained special law as to the place of suing respecting suits envisaged by the section derogating from the generally of the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1890 and Section 18 of the Presidency Town Small Cause Courts Act 1882 and that it brought about an implied repeal of those provisions as to the jurisdiction of 441 courts by itself providing a jurisdiction to those suits
In the appeals before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the legislative intent was clear that it did not render Section 80 over riding by not expressly excluding Section 20 of the Code of Civil Proce dure 1890 and that even if the provisions of Section 80 were held to be a later special law the principle of im plied repeal could not be invoked as there was no incon sistency between the two provisions and on the contrary both sets of provisions could exist and prevail
Dismissing the appeals HELD The doctrine of implied repeal is based on the postulate that the legislature which is presumed to know the existing state of the law did not intend to create any confusion by retaining conflicting provisions
Courts in applying this doctrine are supposed merely to give effect to the legislative intent by examining the object and scope of the two enactments
But in a conceivable case the very existence of two provisions may by itself lead to an infer ence of mutual irreconcilability if the later set of provi sions is by itself a complete code with respect to the same matter
In such a case the actual detailed comparison of the two sets of provisions may not be necessary
452F G It is a matter of legislative intent that the two sets of provisions were not expected to be applied simultaneous ly
452H Section 80 is a special provision dealing with certain class of suits distinguishable on the basis of their partic ular subject matter
It made a conscious departure on the law as to the place of suing in respect of suits envisaged by that Section and is a self contained provision in regard to the choice of fora for such suits
There was no need for the legislature to specify the places of suing which would otherwise be covered by Section 20 CPC unless the special prescription as to places of suing was considered to be necessary in derogation to the general law as the matter contained in Section 20 CPC or the provisions in the Small Cause Courts Act
453B C Assam Cold Storage vs Union of India AIR 1971 Assam 69 Hindustan Machine Tools vs Union of India AIR 1985 Madras 130 Oghamal Chaudhury vs Union of India and Union of India vs Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd AIR 1981 Bombay 414 approved
442 New India Assurance Co vs Union of India AIR 1981 Delhi 135 and Union of India vs CR Prabhanna AIR 1977 132 over ruled
Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jaya Ben D Kania and another   Municipal Council Palai vs TJ Joseph and others   Zaver Bhai Amaidas vs State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 752 Union of India vs Ladu Lal Jain  and Union of India vs The Steel Stock Holders Syndicate Poona   referred to