# FlRM AMAR NATH v. TEK CHAND (Jaganmohan Reddy,/,) W~J

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 922
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-05-27
- **Case number:** C.A. No. 1052 of 1971
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/flrm-amar-nath-v-tek-chand-jaganmohan-reddy-w-j-5634
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

FetMS AMAR NATH BASHESHAR DASS .
'.v.
·TEK ClfAND
March 21, 1972H
P JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J
[K. S.
EGDE,
•
.
u b
Rtlll Rtr~riction Act, 1949, Ss. J and 13 read with
,PficllnJ:!b d '1 adnJuly 13 · l965..,..-Exemption from provision of &ection 13
;11011 at ton a e
•
· 1
· ·
{il d
·.' ·
.5
hefh ·
b claimtd in CP.l't.t where sull or ttvrctlon
e
ww1t11
;ars e;, ccC::mpletion of building but d.:cree obtained after" expiry of mid
·' year:t •
. Under the P~njab Rent. Restric~on, Ac_t, 1949 a landlord can evict
a tenant only on the grounds and ac,ordmg to the procedullJ provided
. A
c
in ·section 13 of the Act. Section 3 of the A.ct provides. for exemption t~
be ~ranted bv Government from the opel':ltlon of sect1on 13. By noli·
ficauon dated July 30. 1965 t!YJ Government of Punjab granted
su::h
exemption in rcsp:ct of building constructed
during ·the year 1959 to
D
J963 !or a period of S years from the date of their completion, on the
,condition that during the afores~tid period of exemption suits for eject·
·ment of tenants in respect of those buildings "were or are" institutes in
.civil courts and dec~ ol e:ectment "were or are" passed. The re.spon·
. dent had let out to the appellant a building which was completed in 1960. _ ·- ·
A. tuit for ejectment of the appellant was tiled in 1963 and deere:: '11as obtamed in l ~69. In proce~diog for execution the question was whether the
d~r!_e, havmg hcq1 obtam-:u m~re thon 5 years after completion of the
E --
~u•ldmg, was exempt from operation of section 13. The High. Court
'" 5eCOnd np~al h~ld in favour of the .respondent.
In appeal to this
!Aurt by spc:t•al i.eaYe, the appellant contend.!<! that the decree in' the
su•t. ~avmg been. paW!d ~tftcr a period· of 5 yeah from the date of cons-
~chon, e11o;molJon from restrictions plac.t:d by s 13 will not be avaikibc
~cahlh "':t ... only tb~ ~uit . !hould be filed but 'the decree for
eviction
~. ou
e <ml:uned wtth1n the sajd pcrio<l of S )•!an.
-
·
'
liELD : The tiling o! fh
It · ·. h'
h
.
· , . .1.1..
-only condition that is .
c sutb Wit •n t e penod o( el(empt'ion I!;· me
uem,tion tbe other t nec~s~ary ·
6atMy otlt- ot the requlremeiltt- cf the
F
~~ qf. whii;h no t i~ 6utr..!~ent lnloa. the pa~•lng of tbe decree- in ~shy· 'dle ··appellant, bas;;, ~\ •· en prescnbe~. If t.he,,d\:~r!:e. •~ CO!J!ell<kd
wes:ill>" netd to \~elf
th~ . obtulnc~ w!thtn tb: period of S )'.!at$.": there
bco:li!U!•: the e:~emption ~fr~! t~he ~Uit. had to be ·fifed w~thin tha(?eriod
G
{>{ lhc ducr.:e •n..J pot tile suit. ~9~8qflerneoh ·of s .. I 3 !$ only in respe.::t
Tt·•~. U"<: of !he v.· . -~~· 'we
•· .
.
'
\UIIt ~Ul'YQCl\ the aho'1.:· \n" tr f: ~r. lire
Ill l\;~P,:<:l O[ J.:tno~ U
,i\<JI(~"IS
Of Ue. ·t*r<bfltr, t.1 · ~-~ Hf~:t p n~b~IOO,
~e SUU· shuu!J ba\·-' . b.;.:f\. -~
P•\<cd cr w~ htT(.':1flt:r t
~ . l•kew•·~ deere~~ of elc~mcr.t 4t bj:~o
I~ t.!~d on th·: !:J •t d~y of lh • JW\\t<l.
ifUrt~r •. I\ . 'll~t mav 't9n:HV"'.lf>t\'
~·
11 ~;· ~t>,urJ I•> pv,tu[ijh: ~lie; pH)~ uf lhe ~ Years t:\.:n•rtioo .. :.:-1( -~ it lJ
·:r~ • . ,,., u th;at .... oul<l be u;~ ~ . t:O.:ree woul<i b.: gheo muu.;Jjately
"'- ~~. 1br Mu !l'rouiJ be
re~ult, If the cont~otiun that both· tho:
IH:~cpld~ . l'J27 1-1·928 E)
N•MJ within the pcrie>J (Ji ucmptior(," 1s
· .
I
1
.i
i
I
FlRM AMAR NATH v. TEK CHAND (Jaganmohan Reddy,/,) W~J
A
A statu:e · rnust: be· JntiJ~~·ete? ~m lhe li~l)t ·:O~· i'l' ,.~.b~ct. The v~ry
purpose of the exemption of buddmgs trom the operat1on of s, 13 was
to give · landlords the 1 ight which as owners of buildings they had under
the ordinary law, namely, to give them on lease at rents which they thouJ}!t
remunerative and to evict te.nan.s during that period without any fotteQ
impose;! by the Act.
If na pr.ovision wus >made for exempting such de~
rees in respect of the •!xempted
building, the exemption granted
w1Jl
B
be illusory. 1.926 H-927 EJ ·
Accordingly the appeal must fail.

## Text

FetMS AMAR NATH BASHESHAR DASS .
'.v.
·TEK ClfAND
March 21, 1972H
P JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J
[K. S.
EGDE,
•
.
u b
Rtlll Rtr~riction Act, 1949, Ss. J and 13 read with
,PficllnJ:!b d '1 adnJuly 13 · l965..,..-Exemption from provision of &ection 13
;11011 at ton a e
•
· 1
· ·
{il d
·.' ·
.5
hefh ·
b claimtd in CP.l't.t where sull or ttvrctlon
e
ww1t11
;ars e;, ccC::mpletion of building but d.:cree obtained after" expiry of mid
·' year:t •
. Under the P~njab Rent. Restric~on, Ac_t, 1949 a landlord can evict
a tenant only on the grounds and ac,ordmg to the procedullJ provided
. A
c
in ·section 13 of the Act. Section 3 of the A.ct provides. for exemption t~
be ~ranted bv Government from the opel':ltlon of sect1on 13. By noli·
ficauon dated July 30. 1965 t!YJ Government of Punjab granted
su::h
exemption in rcsp:ct of building constructed
during ·the year 1959 to
D
J963 !or a period of S years from the date of their completion, on the
,condition that during the afores~tid period of exemption suits for eject·
·ment of tenants in respect of those buildings "were or are" institutes in
.civil courts and dec~ ol e:ectment "were or are" passed. The re.spon·
. dent had let out to the appellant a building which was completed in 1960. _ ·- ·
A. tuit for ejectment of the appellant was tiled in 1963 and deere:: '11as obtamed in l ~69. In proce~diog for execution the question was whether the
d~r!_e, havmg hcq1 obtam-:u m~re thon 5 years after completion of the
E --
~u•ldmg, was exempt from operation of section 13. The High. Court
'" 5eCOnd np~al h~ld in favour of the .respondent.
In appeal to this
!Aurt by spc:t•al i.eaYe, the appellant contend.!<! that the decree in' the
su•t. ~avmg been. paW!d ~tftcr a period· of 5 yeah from the date of cons-
~chon, e11o;molJon from restrictions plac.t:d by s 13 will not be avaikibc
~cahlh "':t ... only tb~ ~uit . !hould be filed but 'the decree for
eviction
~. ou
e <ml:uned wtth1n the sajd pcrio<l of S )•!an.
-
·
'
liELD : The tiling o! fh
It · ·. h'
h
.
· , . .1.1..
-only condition that is .
c sutb Wit •n t e penod o( el(empt'ion I!;· me
uem,tion tbe other t nec~s~ary ·
6atMy otlt- ot the requlremeiltt- cf the
F
~~ qf. whii;h no t i~ 6utr..!~ent lnloa. the pa~•lng of tbe decree- in ~shy· 'dle ··appellant, bas;;, ~\ •· en prescnbe~. If t.he,,d\:~r!:e. •~ CO!J!ell<kd
wes:ill>" netd to \~elf
th~ . obtulnc~ w!thtn tb: period of S )'.!at$.": there
bco:li!U!•: the e:~emption ~fr~! t~he ~Uit. had to be ·fifed w~thin tha(?eriod
G
{>{ lhc ducr.:e •n..J pot tile suit. ~9~8qflerneoh ·of s .. I 3 !$ only in respe.::t
Tt·•~. U"<: of !he v.· . -~~· 'we
•· .
.
'
\UIIt ~Ul'YQCl\ the aho'1.:· \n" tr f: ~r. lire
Ill l\;~P,:<:l O[ J.:tno~ U
,i\<JI(~"IS
Of Ue. ·t*r<bfltr, t.1 · ~-~ Hf~:t p n~b~IOO,
~e SUU· shuu!J ba\·-' . b.;.:f\. -~
P•\<cd cr w~ htT(.':1flt:r t
~ . l•kew•·~ deere~~ of elc~mcr.t 4t bj:~o
I~ t.!~d on th·: !:J •t d~y of lh • JW\\t<l.
ifUrt~r •. I\ . 'll~t mav 't9n:HV"'.lf>t\'
~·
11 ~;· ~t>,urJ I•> pv,tu[ijh: ~lie; pH)~ uf lhe ~ Years t:\.:n•rtioo .. :.:-1( -~ it lJ
·:r~ • . ,,., u th;at .... oul<l be u;~ ~ . t:O.:ree woul<i b.: gheo muu.;Jjately
"'- ~~. 1br Mu !l'rouiJ be
re~ult, If the cont~otiun that both· tho:
IH:~cpld~ . l'J27 1-1·928 E)
N•MJ within the pcrie>J (Ji ucmptior(," 1s
· .
I
1
.i
i
I
FlRM AMAR NATH v. TEK CHAND (Jaganmohan Reddy,/,) W~J
A
A statu:e · rnust: be· JntiJ~~·ete? ~m lhe li~l)t ·:O~· i'l' ,.~.b~ct. The v~ry
purpose of the exemption of buddmgs trom the operat1on of s, 13 was
to give · landlords the 1 ight which as owners of buildings they had under
the ordinary law, namely, to give them on lease at rents which they thouJ}!t
remunerative and to evict te.nan.s during that period without any fotteQ
impose;! by the Act.
If na pr.ovision wus >made for exempting such de~
rees in respect of the •!xempted
building, the exemption granted
w1Jl
B
be illusory. 1.926 H-927 EJ ·
Accordingly the appeal must fail.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 1052 of 1971.
Apeeal by special lea~e from the judgm~n.t and or?er dated
May 27, 1971 of.the PunJab and Haryana Htgh Court m·Execu·
c tion Second Appeal No. 1783 of 1970. ·
M. C. Chag'la, V. C. Mahajan, S. K. Mehta ~
K. L. Mehta
and K. R. Nagaraja, for the appellant.
M. C. Setalvad, 0. c. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder
Narain, for the respondent.
D
The Judgment of 'the Court was delivered by
P. Jagamnoban Reddy, . .J.
The respondent who was constructing·~ buildjng, had leased it out on a monthly tenancy to the
appellant on the 1st November 1959. The building was uhimately complejed in March 1960. On 14-1-1963 he filed a suit
an.d .I!:Ot a decree for ejectment on 14-8-196~. On 29-8-1969 he
E
filed an .execQ~ion petition but the executing court dismissed it
on 16-4-1970 on the ground that the conditions .Prescribed in th•.!
notification of the Government of Punjab under section 3 of the
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (hereinafter called the
Act') dated ~0-7 -1965, exempting such decrees from sect ion 13
of the said Act were not complied with. An appea~ aszJin'1t this
F iudgment was unsuccessful. On a second appeal 'the ·High Court
held tha1 th·~ decree was executable inasmuch as that decree was
exempted, under the notification. _This appeal is by special leave
against th.at judgment..
Before we notice the conditions prescribed for the exemt>tlon
of decrees of eviction against tenants from the provisions of the
G Act, it is necessary to refer to section l3 of the Act in so far a5
it is relevant and •the notification exe1npting decrees obtai~d by
certain categories of landlords from tho,se provisions.
IL is well·
known that due to the non·availability of housing accpn:ul)Odation
in urban areas and the consequent hardship to tenants who were
already occupying buildings on lease, almost all'the States enacted
H legislation by and under which the landlords' rights to evict
tt.!nants as well as the ri,ght to recover higher exorbitant rents
were considerably cut down. The main scheme of these
Act~
genera1!y was to make i't obligatory on landlords intending to
924.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 s.c.R.
eviot tenants to make applications before the authority prescri~d
UJlder the Act only on the grounds specified in the particular
le~islation, the Rent Control Authority alone could make an
enquiry and order eviction. The jurisdiction of the civil courts
was t~en away. In some of the States, such as in .Uttar Pradesh,
civil courts were allowed to entertain eviotion suits but subject·
to prior leave being obtain from the District Magistrate. ln other
words, in that State two rounds of litigation were provided for.
Simila.d:y, aexmcations for fixation of fair rent where the
rent
charged was considered to be exorbitant. could also be made be·
fore these authorities. These restriotions could not, however,
serve as a panacea for solvin~ the accommodation problem in
urban cities consequent on tht ptrenoroenal migration of population into thos~ areas which was further aggravated by large scale
exodUs due to the partition of India. It, therefore, became necessary for each of the State Governments not only to undertake
buildin~ schemes itself but also to encourage persons who had the
means to build by exempting newly constructed buildiug which
were let out to tenants from rent control restrictions for a particular period. One of such lep;islations is the Act with which we
are now concerned. Unlike other Rent Control legislations, this
Act adopts r:ather a novel method, in that while it pern1Hs suits
beinp; filed and decrees obtained, it places restrictions against their
execution except on specified grounds.. In this case, however, we
are not concerned with the novelty of the 1egislation or the bardship, expense and delay which is caused to the ·landlord or the
tenant by the innovation. adopted by i't.
We may now reaGl the
relevant provi~jons of section 13 which are as under :-
" 13 ( 1) . A tenant in possession of a · bu'ildinJ?, or
rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution
of a decree passed before or after the commencement
of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after
the termination of the tenancy. except in accordance
with the provisions of this section, or in pursuance of
an order made under section 13 of the Punjab Urban
Rent Restriction Act 1947, as subsequently amendttd.
(2_). A landlord who seeks te> evict his tenant- shall
apply to .the Controller f-or a dire:ction in that behalf.
If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is
satisfied-
( here the grounds upon which. he should be satisfied·
have b~n set Qut)
th"! ~ontroller may. make an order directinJ?;' the tenant
to. f>;'t the landlord' in J)OSSeSSion. oo the building or
8
c
D
E
I
F
H
A
B
c
D
FIRM AMAR NATH v., TBK CHAND (Jaganmohan Reddy,/.) 92S
rented land and if the Conrtroller is not so satisfied he
shall make an order rejecting the application : ·
Provided that the ContfQiler may give the tenant a
reasonable time for putting the landlord in possio.n
of the building or rented land and may exttend such
time so as not to exceed three months in the aggre-
~ate.
(3) (_a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for
an order directing the ten~nt to put the landlord in
possession-
( The 2rounds on which he can apply have been set
out)
(b) The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the
claim of the landlord is bona fide make an order direct~
ing the tenant to_ put the landlord in possession of the
·building or rented land on such date as may be speci~
fied by tq~ Controller and if othe Controller is not s~
satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the applica~
tion :
(c) x
X
X
X
X
· Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a
reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of
E
the building or rented land and may extend such time so
as not to exceed three months in the aggregate.
'
(4) X
(5) X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x"
The Government tinder sectio.n 3 has been empowered to
· direct that. all· or any of the provisions of the Act shall nor apply
to any particular building or rented land ot any class of building
or rented lands.
Pursua~t to this power,; the State. Government
was notifyin,g ex~mptions. from time to ~e during a· period of
2,0 years, the :first notification it appears having been issued on
G the 8th March 1951 which exemp!P..,d buildings constructed in
1951 and 1952 from the provisions of the Act for a period of S
years with effect from the date of completion of any such build
ing.
Thereafter followed . several notifications which exempted
buildings · constructed in each of the years after 19$2. The
notification with which we are now concerned was issued on
30-7-1965 and is in the following terms·:.:.._:_
·
H
· ·" . . . . In exercise of the powers conferred by .&ec~
tion 3 of the Punjab· Urban Re.nt Restri~~ion Act 19.4~
and aU other powers· enablin~ hi.m: · in this ·behalf, tho
. ' 13-L1061 Sup. C I/72
• 926
SUPREME .CQVRT REPORTS
. [1972] 3 s.s.R.
Goyerrlor of Punjab is pleased to direct that the provi·
A
sions· of section 13 of the said Act shall not apply .in
respect of decrees for e.iectment of tenants in possession
of building which satisfy the following conditions,
namely:-
· ·
(a) B~ildings constructed during the years 1959,
B
.1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 are exempted from
all the provisions .of the said Act for a period of
five years to be calculated from the dates of
their completion. and
(b) During the aforesaid period of exemption suit~
for eiectment of tenants in possession of 'those
c
buildings were or are instituted in civi} t:ourts
by the landlords against the tenants and decrees
of ejectment were or are passed".
Under the above notification, the provisions of section 13 are
made inapplicable to decrees in respect of buildings constructed
during the years specified in (a) for a period of 5 years to be cal·
culated from the dates of their completion provided during the
said period ~uits had been institU'ted by the landlords against the
tenants.
There is no doubt, from the facts set out above, the
building in respect of which exemption from the application of
section 13 is being claimed, was comple'ted in March 1960 and
a suit had also been filed on 14th January 1963 before the ex~
picy of the period of 5 years from that date. It is contended by
the learned Advocate for the appellant that the decree in that suit
having been passed on 14th August 1969 after the period of 5
years from the date of construction, the exemption from the restrictions placed by section 13 will not be available, because according to him not only the suit should- be filed but the decree
for eviction should be obtained within the said period of 5 years.
This conten1ion on the very face of it would lead to incongruity
m: would, if accepted, have the effect of nullifying the very purpose for which the exemption was being given.
We were reminded wit)J a somewhat emphatic assertion what appears to us
D
E
F
to b;e unexceptional that the Courts are not concerned with J:he
policy, of the legislature or with the result, whether injurious of · G
otherwise, by giving effect to the language used nor is it the func~
tion of the Court where the meaning is .clear not to give effeot to
it merely because it would lead to hardship. It cannot, however,
be gainsaid that 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 t.hte legislature or of 'the
delegate, which in exercise of the powers conferred ori it; has
made the rule or notification in question. In doing so, we must
always presume that rthe impugned provision was designed to
H
•
~RM A:MAR NATH V, TEl: CHAND·(Jaganmdum Reddy, J.) .~27
A effectlfate a particular object or tb 'il)eet a particular ·requirement
and not that it was· intended tt6 negative that which· it sought to
achieve. It is clear that the Government intended to grant certain i.ti.ducements to J)ersons who had ·the · means ·to · construct
buildings by exempting any such . building so constructed tor a
period o~ 5 years. . The period of 5 ye~rs. 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 d:ate when the building was constructed but
by ·the impugned notification it was intend.ed to confer the benefrt
. by giving exemption of 5 years from a subsequent datr.!, namely,
the date of the institution of a suit, provided it was · instituted
within a period of 5 years from the date of the eonstruction of
C the building. A closer reading of the notification would show
that. it was intended to clarify and provide a workable solution in
respect of building constructed in 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and
1963. These buildings had already b~en exempted from the provisions of section 13 by two earlier notifications, the first one in
1960 givin,g exemption upto 31-12-1963 and the se~ond. iq 1963
D 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 ihe applicartion of
se£:tion 13. The very purpose of exemption of buildings from the
operation of s.ection 13 was to ,give landlords the rights which a~
owners of buildings they had under the ordinary law, namely, to
E give them on lease at rents which they thought were remunerative
and to evict tenants during th1tf period without any fetters imposed
J!
. by the Act. If no provision was made for exempting such decree:;
in respect of the exempted buildings, the exemption granted will
be illusory, Clause (b), therelore, provided for the time during
which th~ suit in which the. decree has been passed should be
filed. The decrees pasSed in such suits will be executable free
from the fetters imposed by section.13 of the Act. It is obvious
that the ·filin,g of a suit by itself does not confer any exemption because what is exempted from the provisions of seotion 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 .~hich exemption from the application of section 13
G has been granted. ·
·H
The leamed Advoca1e for the respondent has suggested
3
construction which is consistent witfu our reading of th·~ notification and that is that the. words 'were' or 'are' used in clause (b)
both in respect of the filing of the suits and tthe 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
suns must have been already filed during the period of e~mption
928
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS.
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
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 resB
pect 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 b.een.
filed before that period expired and where the exemption expires
after the notification, suits could be filed thereafter but before the
exemption exnires. In respect of 1961, 1962 and 1963 there is C
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 lap.dlord
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 · D
that a decree would be 11;iven immediate~y thereafter, as th~t would
be the result, if the contention that both the suit and me decree
should be passed within rthe period of exemption, is accepted. This
could not have been th.e intention of the Oovemment in publishing the notification under section 3.
~
E
It is clear to our minds, as it was to the High Court that
under clause (b) the filing of the suit within th~ period of exemption is the only condition that is necessary tp sa~~fy 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 withirl the period of 5 years,
F
there was no need to specify that the .suit had to be filed ·wiihin
that period because the exemption from the requ~rements of section 13 is only in respect of the decree and not the ~uit There
w~s. therefore, no need to mentiotl about the time of the filing
of the suit.
In the view we have taken, the construction placed by the
G
High Court is the only construction '!hat is possible on the language of the notification. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with
costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.