Appeal No 2311955
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated February 16 1954 of the Patna High Court in Title Suit No 1051953
446 N C Chatterjee Sanjeev Choudhuri and Ganpat Rai for the appellant
C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India P K Chatterjee and T M Sen for respondent No 1
 Lal Narayan Sinha Bajrang Sahai and R C Prasad for respondent No 2 1960
August 31
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J
This is an appeal from a decree of the Patna High Court
The appellant is a Public Limited Company with its registered office at Calcutta
A mining lease was granted to it by the Raja of Ramgarh on December 29 1947 for a period of 999 years in respect of 3026 villages situate within the Ramgarh Estate and the appellant was put in possession thereof
On February 1 1950 the appellant granted a sub lease of two of the villages comprised in its grant to one Bhagat Singh for a term of 15 years
In the meantime the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act LIII of 1948 hereinafter called the Act had come into force along with the Mineral Concession Rules 1949 hereinafter called the Rules in the area in which the two villages lay
Bhagat Singh then applied to the Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh for the grant of a certificate of approval under the Rules
Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner taking the view that the sub lease granted was in contravention of the Act and the Rules filed a complaint on September 25 1951 before a magistrate against two directors and the secretary of the appellant charging them with the breach of r 45 of the Rules and also rr
47 and 49 now r 51 read with r 51 now r 53 and section 9 of the Act
While the criminal case was going on the appellant filed a suit challenging the validity and constitutionality of the Act and the Rules
A number of grounds were taken in support of this challenge but it is not necessary now to set out all of them as learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments only to two points namely i a sub lease is not covered by the definition of the term  mining lease  in section 3d of the 447 Act and therefore the Act and the Rules do not apply to a sub lease at all and ii as these Rules were made under sections 5 and 6 of the Act and not under section 7 they have no application to a sub lease granted by a lessor even after the coming into force of the Act and the Rules where the lessor s own lease was of a date anterior to the coming into force of the Act and the Rules
The suit was resisted by the respondents and their defence was that the term  mining lease  included a sub lease and that the Rules framed under Bs
5 and 6 of the Act were applicable to all sub leases granted after the Act and the Rules had come into force
The High Court repelled the contentions raised by the appellant against the validity and constitutionality of the Act and the Rules
It further held that the term mining lease  as defined in section 3d of the Act included a sub lease and therefore the Act and the Rules applied to sub leases granted after the Act and the Rules came into force and it was immaterial that the lease granted to the appellant was anterior in time to the coming into force of the Act and the Rules
On this view the suit was dismissed
Thereupon the appellant applied for a certificate which was granted and that is how the matter has come up before us
The main question that falls for consideration is whether the term mining lease  as defined in section 3d of the Act includes a sub lease
Clause d of section 3 is in these terms  mining lease  means a lease granted for the purpose of searching for winning working getting making merchantable carrying away or disposing of mineral oils or for purposes connected therewith and includes an exploring or a prospecting licence 
There is no specific mention of a sub lease in it
But if one takes the plain meaning of the words used in section 3d it is clear that the term mining lease  means any kind of lease granted for the purpose of searching for winning working getting making merchantable 448 carrying away or disposing of minerals or for purposes connected therewith
It is significant that the definition does not require that the lessor must be the proprietor and so on a fair reading it would include a lease executed by the proprietor as much as a lease executed by the lessee from such a proprietor
If we turn to the definition of lease  in section 105 of the  we find that a lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time express or implied or in perpetuity in consideration of a price paid or promised or of money a share of crops service or any other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee who accepts the transfer on such terms
What a lease therefore requires is a transferor and a transferee and a transfer of immovable property on the terms and conditions mentioned in section 105
How the transferor gets his title to make a lease is immaterial so long as the transaction is of the nature defined in section 105
Applying therefore the plain words of section 3d of the Act and the definition of lease as contained in section 105 of the  it is perfectly clear that there is a transferor in this case namely the appellant and a transferee namely Bhagat Singh who has accepted the transfer the transaction is with respect to immovable property and creates a right to enjoy such property for a certain term and for consideration on the conditions mentioned in it
Though therefore the document may be termed a sub lease in view of the fact that the transferor is not the owner of the property transfer red but is itself a lessee the transaction between the appellant and Bhagat Singh is nothing but a mining lease
The terms  sub lease   under lease  and derivative lease  are used conveniently to indicate not only that the transfer is a lease but also that the transferor is not the owner of the property but is a lessee  but the transfer as between a lessee and a sub lessee is nonetheless a lease provided it satisfies the definition of section 105
We may add that Ch
V of the  which deals with leases of immovable 449 property has nowhere made any distinction between a lease and a sub lease and all the provisions of that Chapter which apply to a lease also apply to a sublease
It is only when dealing with the rights and liabilities of the lessee that section 108j of the lays down that the lessee may transfer absolutely or by way of mortgage or sub lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property and that is where one finds mention of a sub lease namely that it is a lease by a person who is himself a lessee
But the fact that the lessor is himself a lessee and the transaction between him and the person in whose favour he makes the transfer by way of lease is called a sub lease does not in any way change the nature of the transfer as between them
Therefore on the plain words of section 3d read with section 105 of the there can be no doubt that the term mining lease  includes a sub lease  Learned counsel for the appellant referred in this connection to a number of statutes wherein a sub lease has been expressly stated to be included in the term lease 
In the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act LXVII of 1957 which has replaced the Act the term mining lease  has been defined in section 3c as meaning a lease granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operations and includes a sublease
The 1957 Act was enacted after the judgment of the High Court in this case and the legislature apparently thought it fit ex abundanti cautela to say that a sub lease is included within the term  mining lease 
In the corresponding English Act also as well as the English Law of Property 1925 a lease has been defined to include a sub lease
The fact however that in some laws a lease is defined to include a sub
lease does not mean that a lease cannot otherwise include a sub lease
An example to the contrary is the  where the definition of the word 1 lease  clearly includes a sub lease
Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on certain decisions in which it was held that a lease did not include a sub lease
Those decisions however turn on the particular terms of the enactment there under 450 consideration and are of no assistance in determining the question whether the term mining lease  in the Act includes a mining sub lease
Ordinarily a lease will include a sub lease unless there is anything to the contrary in the particular law
We may in this connection refer to the observations of Jessel M R in Camberwell and South London Building Society vs Holloway 1 at p 759  The word lease  in law is a well known legal term of well defined import
No lawyer has ever suggested that the title of the lessor makes any difference in the description of the instrument whether the lease is granted by a freeholder or a copyholder with the licence of the Lord or by a man who himself is a leaseholder
It being well granted for a term of years it is called a lease
It is quite true that where the grantor of the lease holds for a term the second instrument is called either an under lease or a derivative lease but it is still a lease  
We see nothing in the Act to indicate that the term  mining lease  as defined in a 3d does not include a mining sub lease
On the other hand looking to the purpose and object with which the Act was passed it seems to us quite clear that a sub lease must be included within the term mining lease  as it obviously is within the plain words of section 3 d
That the Act was passed in the public interest is shown by the fact that it provides for the regulation of mines and oil fields and for the development of minerals
The intention was that the mineral wealth of the country should be conserved and should be worked properly without waste and by persons qualified in that kind of work
With that object in view section 5 inter alia provides for making rules as to the conditions on which mining leases may be granted and the maximum or minimum area and the period for which such lease may be granted as also the terms on which leases in respect of contiguous areas may be amalgamated and the fixing of the maximum and minimum rent payable by a lessee 1  759 451 whether the mine is worked or not
Section 6 provides for framing of rules for the conservation and development of minerals the manner in which any mineral or any area as respects which the grant of mining lease is prohibited may be developed and the development of any mineral resources in any area by prescribing or regulating the use of engines machinery or other equipment and so on
These provisions for the conservation development and regulation of mining areas and minerals would be more or less completely frustrated if a mining sub lease was not included in the definition of the term mining lease  for then all that would be necessary for a per
son who wanted to avoid the law would be to interpose an intermediary between himself and the owner and get a sub lease from him which would be free from the regulatory control of the Act and the Rules We are therefore of opinion that looking at the plain words of section 3d and the object and the purpose for which the Act was passed it is clear that a mining sub lease is included within the definition of the term mining lease  and there is nothing in the Act which militates against this
We therefore hold that a mining sub lease made after the coming into force of the Act and the Rules is included in the term mining lease  as defined in section 3 d and is subject to the Act and the Rules
The argument in this connection is that a 4 of the Act provides that no mining lease shall be granted after the commencement of the Act otherwise than in accordance with the rules framed under the Act and any mining lease granted otherwise shall be void and of no effect
Sections 5 and 6 give power to the Central Government to make rules for purposes already set out above and refer to mining leases granted under section 4 Then comes section 7 which lays down that the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette make rules for the purpose of modifying or altering the terms and conditions of any mining lease 58 452 granted prior to the commencement of the Act so as to bring such lease into conformity with the rules framed under Be
5 and 6
It is urged that where a mining lease has been granted before the Act and the Rules came into force it is only the rules framed under section 7 which will affect any sub lease granted by such a lessee even though the sub lease is after the date on which the Act and the Rules came into force
Section 7 in our opinion was enacted for an entirely different purpose as sub section
2 thereof will show
It is however not necessary to go into this matter further for once it is held that a sub lease is included in the term mining lease  the rules made under sections 5 and 6 would apply to such a sub lease if it is made after the Act and the Rules came into force
In the present case the sub lease was granted after the Act and the Rules came into force in the area with which the sub lease is concerned and therefore the sub lease would be governed by the Act and the Rules
There is no question in this case of modifying or altering the terms and conditions of any mining lease granted prior to the commencement of the Act for the Act and the Rules are being enforced with respect to a sub lease which is a mining lease within the definition of that term in section 3d made after the Act and the Rules came into force
No change is being made by the Rules in the terms and conditions of the mining lease granted to the appellant and all that has happened is that the appellant s directors and secretary are being prosecuted for granting a sub lease which is a mining lease against the provisions of the Act and the Rules after the Act came into force
There is no force therefore in this contention of the appellant and it must be repelled
There is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs
 One set of hearing costs only
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
An order directing the detention of the petitioner was made on the 15th of November 1951 under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 as amended by the Amending Act of 1951 which prolonged the duration of the Act of 1950 up to the 1st April 1952
The Preventive Detention Amendment Act of 1952 extended the duration of the Act of 1950 for a further period of six months that is to say until the 1st October 1952
Section 3 of the Act of 1952 provided further that detention orders confirmed under the principal Act and in force immediately before the commencement of the Act of 1952 shall where the period of detention is not specified in the order remain in force for so long as the principal Act which was defined as the Act of 1950 was in force
 It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that his detention after 1st April 1952 was illegal
Held iWhen a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself or a part of itself into the earlier then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed except where that would lead to a repug nancy inconsistency or absurdity as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all
After the passing of the Act of 1952 the expressions the Act of 1950 and the principal Act meant the Act of 1950 as amended by the Act of 1952 and the effect of section 3 of the Act of 1952 was that the detention of the petitioner would remain in force until the 1st October 1952 without prejudice to the power of the Government to modify or revoke it ii section 3 did not contravene article 14of the Constitu tion as there was a rational classification of the cases of detention orders in the section and the period of detention was left in every case to the discretion of the State iii the words any person in sub cl
b of c17 of article 22 of the Constitution do not contemplate that individ ual attention should be paid to each case on the contrary the words used in the said sub clause empower the Parliament to prescribe the maximum for a class taken as a whole as it has done in section 3 and section 3 does not therefore offend cl
4 or cl
7 of article 22 iv the power of the Parliament to fix a maximum period does not exhaust itself once it has exercised that power but can be exercised again in respect of the same detention v section 3 is not repugnant tO the Constitution on the ground that it does not fix a time limit for it speci fies the period as until the expiry of the Act nor on the ground that it introduces the idea of potentially indefinite detention by periodical amendments for the Parliament has the power to do that 685