ION Civil Appeal No1014 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 2511988 of the Madras High Court in CPP No 215 of 1986
Mrs Nalini Chidambaram Ms Setia Vaidalingam N Thiagarajan and Ms Radha for the Appellant
section Srinivasan for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether a landlord who seeks eviction of a tenant from a non residential building other than a non residential building which is used for keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use under section 103aiii of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act  is required to prove that he requires the said building for his own use or for the use of any member of his family bona fide in the proceedings instituted before the Controller
The appellant is a partnership firm represented by its partner 5
Peer Mohammed
The respondent s brother was carrying on business in hardware in the front portion of the ground floor of the premises bearing No 157 Kutcheri Road Mylapore Madras 4
The appellant purchased the said running business from the brother of the respon dent on 571974
The said building however belonged to the father 389 of the respondent
After purchasing the business the appellant became a tenant under the father of the respondent by paying an advance of Rs1500 and agreeing to pay a rent at the rate of Rs450 per month for the portion in which it commenced to carry on the business
In the rear portion of the ground floor of the premises one Mrs Janaki Ammal was residing as a tenant
Mrs Janaki Ammal vacated the said residential portion in October 1974
With effect from 5101974 the appellant took the portion vacated by Mrs Janaki Ammal also on rent from the father of the respondent by paying Rs525 as advance and agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs175
The rent of this portion was increased subsequently to Rs315 per month
On 25111980 the appellant received a notice from an advocate who was acting on behalf of the father of the respondent terminating the tenancy of the appellant in respect of both the portions with effect from 31121980 and requiring the appellant to deliver possession of the two portions of the ground floor of the premises in question to the father of the respondent on the ground that he needed the premises for the occupation of his son
The appellant sent a reply denying the right of the respondent s father to evict the appellant from the premises
Thereafter it is stated that the ownership of the premises in question was transferred in favour of the respondent by his father
Thereafter the respondent asked the appellant to increase the rent payable for the premises
In order to avoid litigation the appellant agreed to pay a consolidated amount of Rs1000 per month by way of rent for both the portions in the year 1981 and also paid a sum of Rs7500 as advance
On 961982 an agreement was entered into in respect of both the portions specifying that the lease should remain in force till 851983
After the expiry of the said period it is stated the respondent again demanded enhanced rent
On the appellant not complying with the said demand the respondent instituted a petition for eviction of the appellant in the Court of the Controller at Madras under section 103aiii of the Act on the ground that the premises in question were needed by his wife for carrying on pawn broker business which she was carrying on elsewhere
The appellant resisted the petition
It was inter alia contended by the appellant that the requirement of the wife of the respondent was not bona fide and the petition was liable to be dismissed
After trial the Controller dismissed the petition holding that the tenancy in question was in respect of both the residential and non residential portions and that the respondent could not seek eviction of the appellant as the major portion of the demised premises was of residential character
Aggrieved by the decision of the Controller the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal
Thereupon the respon 390 dent preferred a revision petition before the High Court of Madras inCivil Revision Petition No 215 of 1986
That petition was allowed by the High Court holding that it was not necessary for the respondent to establish that his requirement was bona fide as the question of bona fides of a landlord s requirement did not arise for consideration at all in case falling under secti10 103aiii of the Act
It however held that the claim of the respondent was bona fide
Accordingly the High Court allowed the revision petition and directed the appellant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent
This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras
The crucial question which arises for consideration in this case is whether it is necessary for a landlord who institutes a petition under section 103aiii of the Act to establish that his requirement is bona fide or not
As can be seen from the long title of the Act it was enacted by the State Legislature to amend and consolidate the law relating to the regulation of the letting of residential and non residential buildings and the control of rents of such buildings and the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the State of Tamil Nadu
Section 10 of the Act provides that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of section 10 or sections 14 to 16 of the Act
The material portion of sub section 3a of section 10 of the Act which is relevant for purposes of this case reads thus 103a
A landlord may subject to the provisions of clause d apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building
i in case it is a residential building if the landlord required it for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city town or village concerned ii in case it is a non residential building which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use if the landlord required it for his own use or for the use of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying any such building in the city town or village concerned which is his own 391 iii in case it is any other non residential building if the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on a non residential building in the city town or village concerned which is his own         e The Controller shall if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application
 For purposes of sub section 3 of section 10 of the Act the buildings are classified into two categories by the Act namely residential buildings and non residential buildings
Sub clause i of clause a of sub section 3 of section 10 of the Act provides that a landlord may subject to the provisions of clause d apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of a residential building if the landlord required it for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city town or village concerned
Sub clause ii of clause a of sub section 3 of section 10 of the Act relates to eviction from a non residential building which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use
If the landlord required such a building for his own use or for the use of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying any such building in the city town or village concerned which is his own he can apply for the eviction of the tenant therefrom
Sub clause iii of clause a of sub section 3 of section 10 of the Act deals with other kinds of non residential buildings
If the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on a non residential building in the city town or village concerned which is his own a landlord may subject to the provisions of clause d apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of such a building
It may be stated here that the words if the landlord required it for his own use or for the use of any member of his family  are not to be found in sub clause iii of section 103a of the Act
Clause e of section 103 of the Act however provides that the Controller shall if he is 392 satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application
Clause e of section 103 applies to all cases of eviction falling under section 103 of the Act
The decision in this case depends upon the effect of the omission of the words if the landlord required it for his own use or for the use of any member of his family  in sub clause iii of section 103a of the Act
It is argued on behalf of the appellant that reading sub clause ii and iii of section 103a of the Act together which relate to the eviction from non residential buildings the words if the landlord required it for his own use or for the use of any member of his family  which are found in sub clause ii of section 103a should be read into sub clause iii of section 103a also and that a landlord should establish in order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 103aiii of the Act that his requirement or the requirement of a member of his family is bona fide
It is also argued in the alternative that the word claim  in the words that the claim of the landlord is bona fide  in clause e of section 103 of the Act refers only to the requirement of the landlord and to nothing else
On the other hand it is urged on behalf of the respondent relying upon three decisions of the High Court of Madras in i Ms Mahalakshmi Metal Industries vs K Suseeladevi  ii M Abdul Rahman vs section Sadasivam and iii A Khan Mohammed vs P Narayanan Nambiar  Others 99 Law Weekly 966 that there was no need for a landlord to establish the bona fides of his requirement or the requirement of a member of his family when a petition is filed under section 103aiii of the Act and it is enough if his claim is proved to be bona fide
The High Court has upheld the said plea of the respondent relying upon the said three decisions
The correctness of these three decisions is questioned before us by the appellant
We have already noticed that the object of the Act was to prevent unreasonable evictions of tenants from buildings
The Act is an ameliorating piece of legislation
Similar acts are in force in almost all the States in India
The provision in question has to be construed against this background
The Act has been in force from 1960
In Moti Ram vs Suraj Bhan  Other  this Court was required to construe section 133aiii of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 which at the relevant time provided that a landlord might apply to the Controller for directing a tenant to 393 put the landlord in possession of the building in question if he required it for the re construction of that building or for its replacement by another building or for the erection of other buildings
In that case the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had rejected the claim of the landlord on the ground that the landlord had not established that the premises in question were required by him bona fide
The High Court while accepting that the requirement in question must be shown to be bona fide held that on the evidence the findings of the Courts below that the landlord s requirement was not bona fide were not correct
The High Court accordingly directed the eviction of the tenant in question
This Court while affirming the decision of the High Court held that the landlord had in fact made out that he required the premises bona fide for purposes of re construction
Thus it is seen that in the context of a law enacted for preventing unreasonable evictions this Court read into a ground on which a landlord could seek the eviction of his tenant that the landlord should establish that his requirement was bona fide
A mere desire on the part of the landlord to re construct a building was not sufficient to evict a tenant from the premises
He had to establish that he needed the premises bona fide for re construction it
In a later case ie Neta Ram vs Jiwan Lal 1962 2 Supp
SCR 623 which arose under the provisions of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance one of the grounds on which the landlord sought the eviction of the tenants in occupation of the premises involved in that case was that the premises were in a state of disrepair and were dilapidated and therefore the landlord wished to rebuild on the premises after dismantling the structure
On the said issue the Rent Controller held that in deciding whether the tenant should be ordered to hand over the possession to the landlord the Courts must have regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord which meant that the desire to rebuild the premises should be honestly held by the landlord but that the condition of the building also played an important part in determining whether the landlord had the intention genuinely and the landlord was not using the said excuse as a device to get rid of the tenants
In that connection the Rent Controller observed that the state of the building the means of the landlord and the possibility of the better yield by way of rent should be kept in mind
The Controller holding that the claim of the landlord was not bona fide decided the said issue against him
On appeal the Appellate Authority held that the shops and chobaras were in good condition and that the landlord was not in good faith wanting to replace the building when he had no means to build it
The High Court however allowed the revision petition filed before it holding that upon the evidence on record it had been established 394 beyond doubt that the landlord genuinely and bona fide required the premises for re building
On appeal by special leave to this Court this Court observed that the very purpose of the Rent Restriction Act would be defeated if the landlords were to come forward and to get tenants turned out on the bare plea that they wanted to reconstruct the house without first establishing that the plea was bona fide with regard to all circumstances viz that the houses needed reconstruction or that they had means to reconstruct them
Accordingly the judgment of the High Court was reversed and the petitions for eviction were dismissed
Following the observations made in the above decisions in Nathella Sampathu Chetty vs Sha Vajingjee Bapulal a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras construed section 103aiii of the Act thus Section 10 of the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1960 provides for eviction of tenants in certain circumstances
Sub section 3aiii of the section allows a landlord to apply to the Controller for an order directing a tenant to put him in possession of the building if the landlord is not occupying for purposes of business which he is carrying on a non residential building in the city town or village concerned which is his own
The second proviso to this clause is to the effect that where a landlord has already obtained possession of a building under this provision he shall not be entitled to apply again for possession of another non residential building of his own
If the conditions of these provisions are satisfied the Controller may make an order as asked for by the landlord provided he is further satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide
underlining by us In the Madras District Central Co operative Bank Limited Mylapore Branch Madras 4 vs A Venkatesh 99 Law weekly 714 a single Judge of the High Court disagreed with the views expressed by another single Judge in Abdul Rahman s case supra and observed thus The question now is whether an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession should be made
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent landlord following a ruling of this Court in Abdul Rahman vs section Sadasivam that there is no jurisdiction for the Rent Controller to go into the question of bona fide requirement 395 in a claim under section 103aiii of the Act
Ramanujam J took the view that a distinction has to be made between the two sections section 103ai and section 103aiii in view of the word require  occurring in section 103ai and in the absence of that word in section 103aiii in other words what the learned Judge points out is that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide as the Rent Controller has to pass an order of eviction in case the landlord is not occupying for the purpose of business which he is carrying on any non residential building in the city which is his own
The learned Judge further pointed out that when the provisions of section 103ai and section 103aiii use different expressions it should be taken that the Legislature intended these provisions to have different operations
With respect to the learned Judge I may point out that the mere absence of the word require  in section 103aiii would not necessarily lead to the inference that the Legislature did not intend that the Rent Controller should go into the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord in respect of the requirement of a non residential premises under section 103aiii of the Act
My reasons for holding so are as follows section 10 enumerates certain grounds for the eviction of the tenant
In other words eviction under the Rent Control Act can be effected only on the grounds mentioned in section 10
The landlord may have a right to evict the tenant under the general law
section 103a says that the landlord may subject to the provisions of Cl
d apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the buildings
section 103ai deals with residential buildings
section 103aii deals with non residential buildings used for purpose of keeping vehicles
section 103aiii is in respect of non residential buildings
section 103b gives a right to religious charitable educational or other public institutions to institute proceedings before the Controller if the institution requires the building
section 103c is for additional accommodation
section 103d speaks of tenancy for specified period agreed between the landlord and the tenant and it prohibits the landlord from applying before the expiry of such period
Now after these sections section 103e runs thus The Controller shall if he is satisfied that the claim 396 of the landlord is bona fide make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application  I find in the judgment of Ramanujam J this section 103e has not been adverted to
section 103e applies to Ss 103ai 103aii and 103aiii and also to Ss 103b and 103c
If the Legislature intended that the provisions of section 103ai and section 103aiii to have different operations the Legislature would not have stated in section 103e that the Controller should be satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide before he makes an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession and the further words if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application  very clearly show that the Controller should before passing an order for eviction be satisfied with the bona fide of the claim or else he should dismiss it
 The main ground on which the learned Judge who decided the above case disagreed with the decision in Abdul Rahman s case supra is that in Abdul Rahman s case supra section 103e of the Act which applied to all the three sub clauses namely i ii and iii in section 103a of the Act had not been adverted to
The learned Judge also held that the mere absence of the word require  in section 103aiii of the Act did not necessarily lead to the inference that the Legislature did not intend that the Controller should not go into the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord in a petition for eviction filed under that provision
Another learned Judge of the Madras High Court has taken the same view in Ms Thilagaraj Match Works through its partner section Chidambaram vs C Sundaresan 1985 1 Mad
Law J 106
It is observed in that case thus In the present case the Appellate Authority has not adverted to these features at all and in one place he observes that the bona fide of the claim of the landlord is extraneous and it should not be tested too severely
This exposes his wrong approach to the question of bona fide which is a relevant one
The very ingredient of section 103e of the Act requires that the question of bona fide has got to be tested and it has got a due place while 397 adjudicating a petition for eviction by the landlord under the concerned provisions
It is not the desire of the landlord but there must be an element of need for the landlord before it could be stated that he requires the premises for his own occupation
The features referred to above cannot be eschewed as irrelevant for after all bona fide will have to be proved in an ordinary manner like any other fact in issue and the entire gamut of facts and circumstances has to be adverted to on this question
As already stated I am not expressing any opinion over these features on merits and it is for the Appellate Authority to advert to them and adjudicate upon the question afresh one way or the other
The discussions above oblige me to interfere in revision and accordingly the revision is allowed and the matter stands remitted to the Appellate Authority for him to consider it afresh taking note of all the relevant features and factors of the case on the question of bona fides and pass appropriate orders
Both the counsel represent that for the purpose of comprehensive adjudication of the matter further evidence has to be adduced
I take note of the request of both the counsel and I direct that the Appellate Authority will permit the parties to place further evidence and he will decide the matter afresh after such evidence is placed the Appellate Authority will do well to dispose of the matter expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order In P Thanneermalai Chettiar vs SJ Dhanraj another learned Judge of the High Court of Madras has construed section 103e of the Act thus It is not disputed that section 103e of Act 18 of 1960 is applicable to the case of residential building as well as non residential building and it is provided therein that if the Controller is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide he shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building otherwise he has to reject the application
In the instant case considering the various circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner was residing in a house of his own at Devakottai where he has got vast extent of properties and was carrying on business along with other members of his family the 398 claim of the petitioner that he required the premises for his own use and occupation is not proved and in any event there is no bona fide in the same The main ground on which the learned Judge who decided Abdul Rahman s case supra held that it was not necessary to establish the bona fide equipment of the landlord when he made an application for eviction under section 133aiii of the Act was that the word require  was not to be found in section 103aiii of the Act
We are of the view that having regard to the pattern in which clause a of sub section 3 of section 10 of the Act is enacted and also the context the words if the landlord required it for his own use or for the use of his any member of the family  which are found in sub clause ii of section 103a of the Act have to be read also into sub clause iii of section 103a of the Act
Sub clause ii and iii both deal with the non residential buildings
They could have been enacted as one sub clause by adding a conjunction and  between the said two sub clause in which event the clause would have read thus in case it is a non residential building which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use if the landlord required it for his own use or for the use of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying any such building in the city town or village concerned which is his own and in case it is any other non residential building if the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on a non residential building in the city town or village concerned which is his own  If the two sub clauses are not so read it would lead to an absurd result
The non residential building referred to in sub clause ii is a building which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use and all other non residential buildings fall under sub clause iii
The State Legislature cannot be attributed with the intention that it required a more stringent proof by insisting upon proof of bona fides of his requirement or need also when a landlord is seeking eviction of a tenant from a garage than in the case of a non residential building which is occupied by large commercial house for carrying on business
The learned counsel for the respondent was not able to explain as to why the State Legislature gave greater protection to tenants occupying premises used for keeping vehicles or adapted for such use than to tenants occupying other types of non residential buildings
It is no doubt true that the Court while construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is 399 enacted the court should construe it in a harmoneous way to make it meaningful
In Seaford Court Estates Ltd vs Asher 1949 2 All
ER 155 at 164
Lord Denning LJ said When a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman
He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament   and then he must supplement the written word so as to give force and life  to the intention of the legislature  
A judge should ask himself the question how if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it they should have straightened it out He must then do as they would have done
A judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven but he can and should iron out the creases
 This rule of construction is quoted with approval by this Court in M Pentiah and Ors
vs Muddala Veeramallappa and Ors  at 314 and it is also referred to by Beg CJ in Bangalore Water Supply  Sewerage Board etc
vs R Rajappa  Ors  In the present case by insisting on the proof of the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord the Court is not doing any violence to the statute nor embarking upon any legislative action
The Court is only construing the words of the statute in a reasonable way having regard to the context
We are of the view that by merely proving that the premises in question is a non residential building and that the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for the purpose of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on any residential building in the city town or village concerned which is his own the landlord cannot in the context in which section 103aiii appears get a tenant evicted
He must show in view of clause e of section 103 that his claim is bona fide
The word claim  means a demand for something as due or to seek or ask or for on the ground of right etc
In the context of Rent Control Law which is enacted for the purpose of giving protection to tenants against unreasonable evictions and for the purpose of making equitable distribution of buildings amongst persons who are in need of them in order to prove that his claim is bona fide a landlord should establish that he deserves to be put in possession of the premises which is in the occupation of a tenant
Any decision on 400 the question whether a landlord deserves to be put in possession of a premises in the occupation of a tenant should naturally depend upon the bona fides of the landlord s requirement or need
The word claim  in clause e of section 103 of the Act should therefore he construed as the requirement  of the landlord or his deservedness Deserve  means to have a rightful claim  or a just claim 
Since clause e of section 103 of the Act is also applicable to a petition filed under sub clause iii of section 103a of the Act it becomes necessary to examine whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide
Otherwise a landlord will be able to evict a tenant to satisfy his whim by merely proving the ingredients mentioned in section 103aiii of the Act
Take a case where a landlord for some oblique reason wishes to get rid of his tenant from a non residential building of the category mentioned in section 103aiii and to achieve his aim fakes to start money lending business for which indeed no specified separate portion in a building may be needed in a building not belonging to him and to create evidence even actually lends money to some of his friends or relatives and a week thereafter applies for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he is carrying on business and has no non residential building of his own in his occupation in the city town or village concerned
Apparently the conditions prescribed in the aforesaid sub clause iii are fulfilled
If the requirement of claim being bona fide as contained in section 103e is construed to mean that genuineness of the need of the landlord for the non residential building is not to be considered and the circumstances that the landlord on the date of making the application is factually carrying on business and has no non residential building of his own in his occupation in the city town or village concerned is to be construed sufficient to make his claim bona fide the tenancy of no non residential building will be secure
It will be preposterous to attribute such an intention to the legislature
Such a contingency should be avoided as it would be against the very object of the Act itself
The need of the landlord should be genuine
That is the object of enacting clause e of section 103 of the Act
When once we reach the above conclusion it is not enough that the landlord should merely desire to use or occupy the premises
What is necessary is that he should bona fide need them for his own use and occupation or for occupation by any of the members of his family as held by this Court in Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandrakant M Patel  Ors  and Mattulal vs Radhe Lal  The learned Judge who decided the case out of which this appeal arises was therefore in error in holding that the landlord need not prove that his requirement was bona fide but that his claim was bona fide as provided in clause e of section 103 of the 401 Act
The learned Judge has made a distinction between requirement  and claim  in the present case without there being a difference
In the circumstances we are of the view that Ms Mahalakshmi s case supra M Abdul Rahman s case supra and A Khan Mohammed s case supra have been wrongly decided
They are liable to be overruled
We accordingly overrule them
We hold that a landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from a non residential premises under section 103aiii of the Act in order to succeed in his petition should establish that he bona fide requires the premises in addition to proving the other ingredients referred to therein
The judgment of the High Court which has proceeded on a wrong basis has therefore to be set aside
Since the High Court while allowing the revision petition has approached the case from a wrong angle it is necessary to direct the High Court to decide it afresh in the light of what we have stated above
We therefore set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand it to the High Court again to decide it afresh
If the High Court finds that the case should be remanded to the Trial Court to enable any of the parties to lead evidence on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord it may remit the case to the Trial Court
The appeal is accordingly allowed
There shall be no order as to costs
SL Appeal allowed


Summary:
 The appellants  lands were among those sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by means of a notification under section 4 followed by a declaration under section 6
The Notification and the declaration were challenged by way of a Writ Petition on the short ground that the appellants had not been heard before making the declaration
When the Writ Petition was heard a statement on behalf of the Government was made to the effect that the notification under section 6 was being withdrawn
On the basis of this statement the Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn
Thereafter the appellants were heard under section 5A and a fresh declaration under section 6 was issued
The appellants filed a Writ Petition and again challenged the Notification under section 4 as vitiated by mala fides and non application of mind
The High Court rejected the same
Another question raised before the High Court was that the withdrawal of the earlier declaration had the automatic effect of rendering the Notification under section 4 ineffective and infructuous
The High Court rejected that contention as well
Hence this appeal by special leave
Dismissing the appeal this Court  HELD 1
Once there is a valid declaration under section 6 the scope of the notification under section 4 will get exhausted
This principle cannot clearly apply to a case where the declaration under section 6 proves to be invalid ineffective or infructuous for some reason
There is no distinction between a case where a declaration under section 6 is declared invalid by the Court and a case in which the Government itself withdraws the declaration under section 6 when some obvious illegality is pointed out
444E 445B 442 Girdhari Lal Amrit Lal vs State   State vs Haider Bux  and State vs Bhogilal Keshavlal  followed
State vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma  distinguished
Ajit Singh vs State AIR 1972 Bombay 177 disapproved
Between the date of withdrawal of the earlier Writ Petition and the issue of the second declaration under section 6 the Government had issued a fresh Notification under section 4 for the acquisition of certain lands
The lands in the two Notifications under section 4 do not completely overlap but some fields are common in both
No declaration under section 6 had been issued in furtherance of the second notification under section 4 when the High Court heard the matter
In respect of the lands covered by the first notification under section 4 which are also covered by or comprised in the second notification under section 4 further proceedings regarding acquisition shall be taken in accordance with law only in pursuance of the latter notification and the proceedings initiated by the first notification should be deemed to have been superseded
445C F