Civil Appeal No 50 of 1988
From the Judgment and order dated 14887 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No 2836 of 1982
Dr Meera Aggarwal for the Petitioner
347 AB Rohtagi Mukul Rohtagi Atul Tewari and Ms Bina Gupta for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 14th August 1987
The appellant took on rent the premises in dispute from the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs 120 and executed a rent note in his favour on 19th April 1975
Clause 4 of the said rent note provided inter alia as follows That the tenant will run the business of English Liquor Vend in the shop will do sale of Liquor
 The landlord respondent herein filed a petition under section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent  Eviction Act 1973 hereinafter called the Act  against the appellant on the ground of arrears of rent from 141979 to 3181979 and change of user from Liquor Vend business to that of general merchandise at the shop in dispute by the appellant
The appellant tendered the entire arrears of rent at the first date of hearing and thereafter he contested by filing written statement
The appellant submitted that after March 1979 the licence of liquor vend in his favour was not renewed and he had to discontinue that business of liquor vend at the shop in dispute and had to start the business of general merchandise
According to the appellant the purpose of the user still remains commercial and that in the rent note there was no clause prohibiting the appellant to change any other business in the shop in dispute
The Rent Controller held that the appellant had changed the user of the shop in dispute and he was liable for eviction under the Act
There was an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal
The appellant went in civil revision to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
The High Court dismissed the civil revision and upheld the eviction
Hence this appeal
The question is whether a ground for eviction was made out under clause b of section 132ii of the Act
The said Act was passed to control the increase of rent of certain buildings and rented land situated within the limits of urban areas and the eviction of the 348 tenants therefrom
Section 132iib of the Act reads as follows 132 A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for direction in that behalf
If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied i XX XX XX ii that the tenant has after commencement of 1949 Act without the written consent of the landlord a XX XX XX b used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased
 The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has relied on a Full Bench decision of the said High Court in Sikander Lal vs Amrit Lal 1984 Punjab Law Reporter 1
That was a case under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949
The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the facts and circumstances of that case held that it was a common ground that the premises was originally leased for the business of handlooms
Thereafter it was used for small carding machine not occupying a space of more than 4 feet x 4 feet which converted cloth into thread
It was held that there was no change of user
The Full Bench however observed that it emerged from the long line of authorities that where the subsequent use of the premises is merely ancillary to the specific original purpose then it would imply no change of user within the meaning of the statute
If by custom or convention or on the finding of the Court it could be held that the added use of the premises was ancillary to the main original purpose then in the eye of law it would be deemed to have been within the terms of the original lease
It was further held that both on principle and on binding precedent it emerged that the specified original purpose could not be according to the Full Bench extended by adding to it any and every purpose thereto and the same must be confined within the limitation of being either a part or parcel of or ancillary to the original purpose
There the Court was concerned with section 132iib of the Act which is an identical provision as the present one
So far as the High Court held in that case that allied business would not amount to change of user but for a business which is not allied for the business for which it was let out would amount to change 349 of user come within the mischief of clause b of section 132ii of the Act the same must be read with reservation
Our attention was drawn to a decision of this Court in Maharaj Kishan Kesar vs Milkha Singh and others Civil Appeal No 1086 of 1964 decided on 10th of November 1965
That was a decision under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949
There on the facts the Court found that selling petrol was an allied business of the workshop and as such it is a part of the business
The Court held that there is no evidence to show that in the trade a petrol pump is not regarded as a part of motor workshop business
The sale of petrol is an allied business and would not amount to conversion to a different business or change of user
There is nothing in the said decision which would give any assistance to the respondent in this case
The business purposes must be adjudged in the light of the purposes of the Rent Act in question which is to control the eviction of tenants therefrom
In the expanding concept of business now a days and the growing concept of departmental stores we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that there was any change of user in the facts of this case which would attract the mischief of the provisions of section 132iib of the Act
The building was rented for purpose of carrying on a business using it for another business it will not in any way impair the utility or damage the building and this business can be conveniently carried on in the said premises
There was no nuisance created
Our attention was drawn to the observations of Lord Diplock in Duport Steels Ltd and others vs Sirs and others at 541
That was a decision in respect of the Trade Disputes Act 1906
Lord Diplock said My Lords at a time when more and more cases involving the application of legislation which gives effect to policies that are the subject of bitter public and parliamentary controversy it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British Constitution though largely unwritten is firmly based on the separation of powers Parliament makes the laws the judiciary interpret them
When Parliament legislates to remedy what the majority of its members at the time perceive to be a defect or a lacuna in the existing law whether it be the written law enacted by existing statutes or the unwritten common law as it has been expounded by the judges in decided cases the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament 350 has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was and to giving effect to it
Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient or even unjust or immoral
In controversial matters such as are involved in industrial relations there is room for differences of opinion as to what is expedient what is just and what is morally justifiable
Under our constitution it is Parliament s opinion on these matters that is paramount
While respectfully agreeing with the said observations of Lord Diplock that the Parliament legislates to remedy and the judiciary interpret them it has to be borne in mind that the meaning of the expression must be found in the felt necessities of time
In the background of the purpose of rent legislation and in as much as in the instant case the change of the user would not cause any mischief or detriment or impairment of the shop in question and in one sense could be called an allied business in the expanding concept of departmental stores in our opinion in this case there was no change of user which attract the mischief of section 132iib of the Act
The High Court therefore was in error
In that view of the matter this appeal is allowed and the order of eviction is set aside
The parties will pay and bear their own costs
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
 A complaint filed in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the appellant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports against respondents Nos 1 and 2 a private limited company and its Managing Director for the alleged commission of an offence under section 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947 was subsequently transferred to another court and cognizance of the offence alleged was taken without examining the appellant as proviso a of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was applicable to this complaint
An application filed by the accused persons for recall of summons and dismissal of complaint was dismissed by the trial Magistrate
An appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the High Court
A special leave application filed against the High Court s order was dismissed by the Supreme Court
An application made at the trial stage for the discharge of respondent No 2 the Managing Director on the plea that there was no allegation of any criminal misconduct against him and the Company respondent No 1 was prepared to admit its guilt and may be appropriately penalised was dismissed by the trial court
On appeal the High Court quashed the process issued against respondent No 2 on the ground that the order of issuance of process 297 was clearly as a result of non application of mind by the trial Judge because when the process was issued against the petitioners the Department and the State had merely filed a complaint case along with list of witnesses and documents and none of the statements of witnesses or copies of documents was produced before the trial Judge and that respondent No 2 could not be prosecuted under section 5 of the Act as the prosecution intended to charge him as principal offender alongwith respondent No 1 the Company and there were no allegations in the complaint that respondent No 2 either aided or abetted in the contravention of the licence conditions by respondent No 1 Company
Allowing the Department s appeal  HELD 11 The High Court had not cared to look into procedural law applicable to the factual situation before it
If a reference had been made to section 200 Proviso a of Code of Criminal Procedure the proceedings against respondent No 2 could not have been quashed
299G H 12 Records of investigation are not evidence in the instant case and a complaint could not be quashed by referring to the investigation records particularly when the petition of the complainant did allege facts which prima facie show commission of an offence
300B The High Court overlooked the fact that similar objections raised earlier were rejected by the same High Court and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court and drew a distinction between the two situations by saying that records of investigation were not available on the earlier occasion
300A B 13 The licensee was a company and a company by itself could not act and has to act through someone
Since there was clear allegation that the Managing Director had committed the offence acting on behalf of the licensee there was no justification for quashing the proceedings against respondent No 2
300C Order of the High Court is vacated
However since the offence was committed 20 years back it would not be in the interest of justice to allow a prosecution to start and the trial to be proceeded with at this belated stage even though respondent No 2 has no equity in his favour and the delay has been mostly on account of his mala fide move
Hence the case against respondent No 2 is directed to be closed forthwith
300EG