Case: M/S Punjab Tin Supply Co., Chandigarh Etc. Etc Vs. The Central Government &amp; Ors

It is to be noted that there is no dispute that as soon as the A ct came into force on November 4, 1972 all the buildings which had been constructed prior to that date came within the scope of the Act. The Act also applied to all the buildings which were constructed thereafter and before January 31, 1973 on which date the notification was issued. The point for consideration is whether on the issue of the notification on January 31, 1973 any such building to which the Act already applied was taken out of the operation of the Act. A reading of the notification does not clearly indicate that the Chief Commissioner intended to grant exemption in respect of any of the buildings constructed prior to January 31, 1973. While the words buildings constructed in the urban area of Chandigarh for a period of five years with effect from the date the sewerage connection is granted which are found in the notification refer to all the buildings to which sewerage connection is granted after the date of the notification, they do not necessarily mean and include buildings which had been given sewerage connection within five years prior to that date. There was also no compelling reason for giving exemption to buildings which had already been constructed as the object of issuing the notification as mentioned earlier was only to encourage construction of new buildings thereafter and not to take away the statutory protection already extended to the tenants of buildings which had come into existence prior to January 31, 1973. The landlords of these buildings have, however, relied upon the decision of this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vajendrapal Gupta(1) in support of their contention. In that case, the Court had to construe the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 2 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act 13 of 1972), the relevant part of which read thus:"Except as provided in sub-section (5) of section 12, sub-section (1-A) of sect ion 21, sub-section (2) of section 24, sections 24-A, 24-B, 24-C or sub-section (3) of section 29, nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed:xxx xxx xxxExplanation 1.-For the purposes of this sub-section, - (a) the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is re ported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time."9. In the above case, the Court held that the aforesaid provision had retrospective effect and applied to buildings constructed prior to the date on which the said Act came into force provided they satisfied the conditions mentioned therein.10. The above provision appears as part of section 2 of the U.P. Act referred to above which exempted many existing and future buildings which satisfied the conditions refer red to in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) thereof. The said exemption was given by the statute itself. It may be stated here that at the instance of one of the parties to the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3573 of 1979 (Suresh Chand v. Gulam Chisti) which was disposed of by the same judgment, a review of the above judgment has been granted and by an order made on October 7, 1983 the case is directed to be reheard. Moreover on the construct ion of the above provision, there are two earlier decisions-one in Ratan Lal Shinghal v. Smt. Murti Devi(1) decided on August 21, 1979 in which it is held that the said provision has no retrospective effect but is only prospective in operation and another in Shri Ram Saroop Rai v. Smt. Lilavati(2) decided on May 7, 1980 in which a contrary view is taken. Section 2 of the said U.P. Act requires to be considered in the setting in which it appears. We are of the view that any decision on that provision has to be confined to that provision and cannot be extended to the present case by analogy.There is one other distinction which is sought to be made between an exemption granted by a notification which is issued by a delegate of the Legislature who is not given power by the Legislature to issue a notification having retrospective effect and an exemption granted by the Legislature itself on the basis of the observations made in Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Gupta Mill Workers Union, Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta v. W. R. Nathu &Ors. and Income-tax Officer, Alleppey v. M.C. Ponnoose &Ors.11. It is not necessary to deal with the above point any further since we are of the view that the notification impugned in these cases stands by itself and it is not to be construed in the background of the provisions of section 2 of the U.P. Act referred to above.12. On a careful consideration of the question we feel that the benefit of the notification cannot be extended to buildings which were given the sewerage connection or electric connection or which were occupied, as the case may be, prior to January 31, 1973. Those buildings are governed by the provisions of the Act and any decrees passed in respect of them are governed by section 13 of the Act. The notification applies only to those buildings which are given sewerage connection or electric connection or which are occupied, as the case may be, on or after January 31, 1973.13

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In these cases the document which has got to be construed is a notification issued under section 3 of the Act by the Chief Commissioner who is only a delegate of the Legislature. It is to be noted that there is no dispute that as soon as the A ct came into force on November 4, 1972 all the buildings which had been constructed prior to that date came within the scope of the Act. The Act also applied to all the buildings which were constructed thereafter and before January 31, 1973 on which date the notification was issued. The point for consideration is whether on the issue of the notification on January 31, 1973 any such building to which the Act already applied was taken out of the operation of the Act. A reading of the notification does not clearly indicate that the Chief Commissioner intended to grant exemption in respect of any of the buildings constructed prior to January 31, 1973. While the words buildings constructed in the urban area of Chandigarh for a period of five years with effect from the date the sewerage connection is granted which are found in the notification refer to all the buildings to which sewerage connection is granted after the date of the notification, they do not necessarily mean and include buildings which had been given sewerage connection within five years prior to that date. There was also no compelling reason for giving exemption to buildings which had already been constructed as the object of issuing the notification as mentioned earlier was only to encourage construction of new buildings thereafter and not to take away the statutory protection already extended to the tenants of buildings which had come into existence prior to January 31, 1973. The landlords of these buildings have, however, relied upon the decision of this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vajendrapal Gupta(1) in support of their contention. In that case, the Court had to construe the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 2 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act 13 of 1972), the relevant part of which readas provided in sub-section (5) of section 12, sub-section (1-A) of sect ion 21, sub-section (2) of section 24, sections 24-A, 24-B, 24-C or sub-section (3) of section 29, nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction isxxx xxxExplanation 1.-For the purposes of this sub-section, - (a) the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is re ported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the firstthe above case, the Court held that the aforesaid provision had retrospective effect and applied to buildings constructed prior to the date on which the said Act came into force provided they satisfied the conditions mentionedabove provision appears as part of section 2 of the U.P. Act referred to above which exempted many existing and future buildings which satisfied the conditions refer red to in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) thereof. The said exemption was given by the statute itself. It may be stated here that at the instance of one of the parties to the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3573 of 1979 (Suresh Chand v. Gulam Chisti) which was disposed of by the same judgment, a review of the above judgment has been granted and by an order made on October 7, 1983 the case is directed to be reheard. Moreover on the construct ion of the above provision, there are two earlier decisions-one in Ratan Lal Shinghal v. Smt. Murti Devi(1) decided on August 21, 1979 in which it is held that the said provision has no retrospective effect but is only prospective in operation and another in Shri Ram Saroop Rai v. Smt. Lilavati(2) decided on May 7, 1980 in which a contrary view is taken. Section 2 of the said U.P. Act requires to be considered in the setting in which it appears. We are of the view that any decision on that provision has to be confined to that provision and cannot be extended to the present case by analogy.There is one other distinction which is sought to be made between an exemption granted by a notification which is issued by a delegate of the Legislature who is not given power by the Legislature to issue a notification having retrospective effect and an exemption granted by the Legislature itself on the basis of the observations made in Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Gupta Mill Workers Union, Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta v. W. R. Nathu &Ors. and Income-tax Officer, Alleppey v. M.C. Ponnooseis not necessary to deal with the above point any further since we are of the view that the notification impugned in these cases stands by itself and it is not to be construed in the background of the provisions of section 2 of the U.P. Act referred toa careful consideration of the question we feel that the benefit of the notification cannot be extended to buildings which were given the sewerage connection or electric connection or which were occupied, as the case may be, prior to January 31, 1973. Those buildings are governed by the provisions of the Act and any decrees passed in respect of them are governed by section 13 of the Act. The notification applies only to those buildings which are given sewerage connection or electric connection or which are occupied, as the case may be, on or after January 31, 1973.