Case: State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr Vs. Anand Swarup

The material facts are briefly as follows:The sole respondent (hereinafter described as the plaintiff) instituted suit No. 678 of 1956 on July 16, 1956, praying for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from recovering certain amount and from threatening to evict him from the 3/8th portion of the premises in suit in his occupation situated in Wright Gunj, Ghaziabad. The plaintiff describes himself as a duty allotted tenant of the portion of the house on a monthly rental of Rs. 4/4 of some time. He had offered the said rent, but neither the Government nor the owner of the premises accepted the same, when subsequently the District Magistrate wanted to eject him from the house, the plaintiff, by some arrangement, become the direct tenant of the landlord. The District Magistrate by a notice dated April 21, 1955, as stated therein, cancelled the allotment order "under which the plaintiff was holding the 3/8th portion of the house No. 36" and notified the plaintiff that he "shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of the Government premises under Section 3 of the U. P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952", (briefly the Act). Another notice was also sent to the plaintiff by the District Magistrate on October 14, 1955, calling upon him to vacate the said premises within thirty days of service of the notice failing which he would be liable to be forcibly evicted therefrom. A notice was also sent by the District Magistrate to the plaintiff under Section 12 to the Act on April 24, 1957, in supression of his earlier notice of November 24, 1956, assessing this time Rs. 1522/10/9 as damages at the rate of Rs. 21/6/6 per month for the unauthorised occupation of the premises from December 15, 1949 to November 21, 1955, inclusive of notice fee and interest to be realisable as arrears of Land Revenue under the Act. After serving a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on April 13, 1956, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif Ghaziabad. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds. Inter alia, according to them, the premises had been requisitioned under the Defence of India rules on July 26, 1946 and were derequisitioned on November 21, 1955. During the above period of requisition the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit premises from December 15, 1949 to November 21, 1955 without any valid allotment order under the Act. The amount was, therefore, assessed by the District Magistrate, who is the competent authority under the Act, on account of the plaintiffs unauthorised use and occupation during the period and the same could be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is not necessary to advert to the other pleas of the defendants for the purpose of this appeal. The trial Court decreed the suit allowing the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from proceedings against the plaintiff under the Act for recovery of the amount as arrears of Land Revenue. The other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were, however, refused. The defendants appeal to the Second Civil Judge, Meerut, was dismissed. That led to the Section Appeal to the High Court which met with the same fate. Hence this appeal by special leave.2. Before the High Court the appellants submitted that the premises in suit being "Government Premises" within the meaning of S. 2(c) of the Act, the suit was barred under Section 15 of the Act. There was dispute between the parties in the High Court with regard to the factum of requisition of the premises under the Defence of India Rules, 1939. The High Court, however, did not deal with this point as it contended itself by relying upon a decision of the same Court reported in Shri Sripat Rai v. District Magistrate, Banaras, 1955 All LJ 681 and held that "the Act cannot be made applicable to a case where the letting had been done prior to the passing of this Act". Since, according to the High Court, the plaintiff came into possession by virtue of an allotment order before the date of the passing of the Act, the State action under the Act was invalid and S. 15 was no bar to the suit.

Reasoning:
This decision in our view cannot bedefinition of Government premises will include such requisitioned property. Yet, if the High Court is right, this Act will not be available to the Government to recover arrears of rent for the premises or to recover damages for unauthorised occupation of such premises respectively under Sections 6 and 12 of the Act. The Act provides for a summary procedure of recovery of rent and of damages. Under Section 14 of the Act "except as otherwise provided in this Act or in any other law, no order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court." By Section 16 "the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any other law." The conclusion of the High Court that the Act is not applicable to a case where letting had been done or requisition had been made or unauthorised occupation had commenced prior to the passing of the Act, clearly runs counter to the scheme and purpose of the Act. Rent will include arrears of rent. Rent is payable by agreement in advance as well as when due. Again, rent not paid when due is said to be in arrears. Sections 4 and 6 of the Act provide for the procedure for recovering the arrears of rent. Section 4 provides that where an arrears of rent "is payable," by any person "for occupation of government premises," the competent authority may, "at any time after 30 days from the date on which rent accrued due, serve upon the persons liable a notice of demand for the amountwords "is payable" indicate that the liability to pay the arrears of rent should be outstanding on the date of the issue of demand. So aclaim for arrears of rent may not be recoverable under Sections 4 and 6. But an arrear of rent, for the recovery of which the period of limitation has not expired, will be an arrear which "is payable." Accordingly it can be recovered by the procedure provided for under Section 4 and 6. This is the first condition. The second condition for the application of Sections 4 and 6 is that the rent due should be on account of "occupation of Government premises." Whenever these two conditions are satisfied, it will be permissible under Sections 4 and 6 to recover the arrears of rent even though in a particular case the premises might have been let before the commencement of the Act. Before the commencement of the Act, suit was the only remedy for recovering the arrears of rent. But the Act gives another remedy for recovering arrears of rent to the Government. There is neither a vested right nor a vested liability in any procedure. The tenant or a trespasser of the government premises has no vested right in the suit procedure. Section 12 provides for a similar procedure for recovering damages from an unauthorised occupier of the Government premises. The words "is in unathorised occupation of any Government premises" in Section 12 are important. They show that the procedure provided for in that section may be pursued for recovering damages for unauthorised occupation where a trespasser is in occupation of any Government premises. In the present case we are concerned with Section 12. The considerations which have persuaded us to hold that the Government can recover the arrears of rent under Sections 4 and 6, even though the letting has been done before the commencement of the Act, equally govern Section 12. So even though the respondent has occupied the premises before the commencement of the Act, it will be open to the Government to pursue the remedy provided for in Section 12 provided the premises are "Government premises." The object of the Act will be considerable defeated if the Government is unable to recover arrears of rent or damages on the sole ground that the defaulter or the trespasser is in occupation of a building which had been let out or occupied prior to the passing of the Act. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the High Courts conclusion that the Act is not applicable to cases where letting had been done prior to the passing of the Act, is correct. To that extent the view of the Allahabad High Court in Sripat Rais case 1955 All LJ 681 (supra) is also notregard to the order of the so called requisition passed by the District Magistrate under rule 81 (2) (bb), it is sufficient to state that no valid order of requisition of the premises could be passed under theBesides the power of requisition under Ruleis conferred upon the Government and there is no delegation of this power by the Government under Section 2 5) of the Defence of India Act in this case in favour of the District Magistrate. The only order of delegation that was produced was that of power under rule 81 (2) (bb). On the materials on record it is not possible to say that the premises in suit were requisitioned property and Government premises within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act. Accordingly the Act does not apply and the defendants are not entitled to recover the amount claimed as arrears of Land Revenue under theis not correct. The point was raised in the High Court. But the High Court did not decide the point.It is well settled by several decisions of this Court that the respondent can support the decree on grounds raised by him and decided against him by the courts below on the analogy of the provisions of order 41, rule 22. Civil Procedure Code. The respondent, therefore is entitled to recanvass the point here to support the decree of the High Court on ground rejected by it or even not considered by it. The only limitation in that behalf is that the respondent by relying upon such a ground cannot be allowed to mutilate or destroy the decree. Short of that, within the ambit of the law, he can support the decree on any ground available to him. The objection of the learned counsel for the appellants is, therefore, of no avail.