Case: Firms Amar Nath Basheshar Dass Vs. Tek Chand

one of the duties imposed on the Courts in interpreting a particular provision of law, rule or notification is to ascertain the meaning and intendment of the legislature or of the delegate, which in exercise of the powers conferred on it, has made the rule or notification in question. In doing so, we must always presume that the impugned provision was designed to effectuate a particular object or to meet a particular requirement and not that it was intended to negative that which it sought to achieve. It is clear that the Government intended to grant certain inducements to persons who had the means to construct buildings by exempting any such building so constructed for a period of 5 years. The period of 5 years could commence from the date of construction or from some other date. Initially, as the earlier notifications would show, that exemption of 5 years was given from the date when the building was constructed but by the impugned notification it was intended to confer the benefit by giving exemption of 5 years from a subsequent date, namely, the date of the institution of a suit, provided it was instituted within a period of 5 years from the date of the construction of the building. A closer reading of the notification would show that it was intended to clarify and provide a workable solution in respect of buildings constructed in 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963. These buildings had already been exempted from the provisions of Section 13 by two earlier notifications, the first one in 1960 giving exemption up-to 31-12-1963 and the second in 1963 for 5 years from the date of completion of the building. It is clear from the language of the notification that what is exempted is the decree for ejectment of a tenant from the application of Section 13.The very purpose of exemption of buildings from the operation of Section 13 was to give landlords the rights which as owners of buildings they had under the ordinary law, namely, to give them on lease at rents which they thought were remunerative and to evict tenants during that period without any fetters imposed by the Act. If no provision was made for exempting such decrees in respect of the exempted buildings, the exemption granted will be illusory. Clause (b), therefore, provided for the time during which that suit in which the decree has been passed should be filed. The decree passed in such suits will be executable free from the fetters imposed by Section 13 of the Act. It is obvious that the filing of a suit by itself does not confer any exemption because what is exempted from the provisions of Section 13 is the decree. A suit filed, therefore, must end in a decree though that decree may be passed subsequent to the expiry of the 5 years period during which exemption from the application of S. 13 has been granted. 5. The learned Advocate for the respondent has suggested a construction of the notification which is consistent with our reading of the notification and that is that the words were or are used in clause (b) both in respect of the filing of the suits and the passing of the decrees would indicate that these suits should have been filed or are hereafter to be filed and likewise decrees of ejectment had been passed or are hereafter to be passed. In other words, the suits must have been already filed during the period of exemption or are to be instituted during such period. This language had to be used because the 5 years exemption in respect of the buildings constructed in 1959 would end in 1964 while the notification was issued in 1965. There is no question of suits being filed in respect of these buildings hereafter; as such decrees in suits filed before 1964 would be exempted. In respect of the buildings constructed in 1960, there would be some buildings in respect of which the five years exemption period would have expired before the notification and, therefore, the suits in respect of such buildings during the relevant period in 1960 should have been filed before that expired and where the exemption expires after the notification, suits could be filed thereafter but before the exemption expires. In respect of 1961, 1962 and 1963 there is of course no difficulty because there is sufficient period for filing suits if they had not been filed by the time the notification was issued. Taking the typical case of a building constructed in 1961, the period of 5 years exemption would expire in 1966 and under the first part of clause (b) it would be open to the landlord to file a suit for ejectment even on the last day of the expiry of the 5 years exemption. If so, it would be absurd to postulate that a decree would be given immediately thereafter, as that would be the result, if the contention that both the suit and the decree should be passed within the period of exemption, is accepted. This could not have been the intention of the Government in publishing the notification under Section 3. 6. It is clear to our minds, as it was to the High Court that under clause (b) the filing of the suit within the period of exemption is the only condition that is necessary to satisfy one of the requirements of the exemption, the other requirement being the passing of the decree in respect of which no time has been prescribed. If the decree, as contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant has to be obtained within the period of 5 years, there was no need to specify that the suit had to be filed within that period because the exemption from the requirements of Section 13 is only in respect of the decree and not the suit. There was, therefore, no need to mention about the time of the filing of the suit.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]5. The learned Advocate for the respondent has suggested a construction of the notification which is consistent with our reading of the notification and that is that the words were or are used in clause (b) both in respect of the filing of the suits and the passing of the decrees would indicate that these suits should have been filed or are hereafter to be filed and likewise decrees of ejectment had been passed or are hereafter to be passed. In other words, the suits must have been already filed during the period of exemption or are to be instituted during such period. This language had to be used because the 5 years exemption in respect of the buildings constructed in 1959 would end in 1964 while the notification was issued in 1965. There is no question of suits being filed in respect of these buildings hereafter; as such decrees in suits filed before 1964 would be exempted. In respect of the buildings constructed in 1960, there would be some buildings in respect of which the five years exemption period would have expired before the notification and, therefore, the suits in respect of such buildings during the relevant period in 1960 should have been filed before that expired and where the exemption expires after the notification, suits could be filed thereafter but before the exemption expires. In respect of 1961, 1962 and 1963 there is of course no difficulty because there is sufficient period for filing suits if they had not been filed by the time the notification was issued. Taking the typical case of a building constructed in 1961, the period of 5 years exemption would expire in 1966 and under the first part of clause (b) it would be open to the landlord to file a suit for ejectment even on the last day of the expiry of the 5 years exemption. If so, it would be absurd to postulate that a decree would be given immediately thereafter, as that would be the result, if the contention that both the suit and the decree should be passed within the period of exemption, is accepted. This could not have been the intention of the Government in publishing the notification under Section 36. It is clear to our minds, as it was to the High Court that under clause (b) the filing of the suit within the period of exemption is the only condition that is necessary to satisfy one of the requirements of the exemption, the other requirement being the passing of the decree in respect of which no time has been prescribed. If the decree, as contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant has to be obtained within the period of 5 years, there was no need to specify that the suit had to be filed within that period because the exemption from the requirements of Section 13 is only in respect of the decree and not the suit. There was, therefore, no need to mention about the time of the filing of the suit.