# Harman Singh and Others v. Regional Transport Authority, Oalcittta, and Others.·

- **Citation:** [1954] 1 S.C.R. 378
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1954
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1951
- **Bench:** PATANJALI SASTRI c. J, Mehr Chand Mahajan, S. R. Das, Ghulam Hasan, Jagannadhadas
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/harman-singh-and-others-v-regional-transport-authority-oalcittta-and-others-272
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order,
1947, Arts. 8(2), 9-Rent payable by Province of Bengal before 15th
A·ugiist, 1947-Pitrpose of lease exclusive purpose of West Bengal
-Liability of West Be,ngal-" Financial obligations," interprCtation
of-Object of Art. 9.
The liability to pay rent under a lease does not come within
the expression
11 financial obligations" in article 9 of the Indian
Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947.
The Province of Bengal took certain premises'on lease on the
6th February, 1947, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 1,800 and
the purposes for which the lease was entered into were, after 15th
August, 194 7, exclusively purposes of the Province of \Vest Bengal :
Held, that the liability to pay rent was not a "financial obligagation" contemplated by article 9 and the Government of West
Bengal was liable under article 8(2)(a) of the abovesaid order to
pay the rent which had accrued up to the 15th August, 194 7.
Province of 1'Vest Ben.gal v. Midnapnr Zemindari Go., Ltit.
(54 O. W. N. 677), Sree Sree Iswar Madan Gopal Jia v. Province
of West Bengal (54 0. W. N. 807) and The State of P.nnjab v.
L. 111ohanlal Bhayana (A. I. R. 1951 Punj. 382) referred to.

## Text

1953
Harman Singh
and Others
v.
Regional
Transport
Authority,
Oalcittta,
and Others.·
1953
Nov. 24.
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[i954j
of Calcutta, then the mere circumstance that by grant
of licence at different tariff rates to holders of different
taxis and different classes of vehicles some of the existing licence holders are affected cannot bring the case
under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
For the reasons given above this appeal has no
merits and we accordingly dismiss it with costs.
Appeal disrnissed.
Agent for the appellant : Sulcurnar Ghose.
Agent for respondents Nos. 1 & 2: P. K. Bose.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
v.
SHAIKH SERAJUDDIN BATLEY.
UNION OF INDIA : INTERVENER
[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN,
S. R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.]
Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order,
1947, Arts. 8(2), 9-Rent payable by Province of Bengal before 15th
A·ugiist, 1947-Pitrpose of lease exclusive purpose of West Bengal
-Liability of West Be,ngal-" Financial obligations," interprCtation
of-Object of Art. 9.
The liability to pay rent under a lease does not come within
the expression
11 financial obligations" in article 9 of the Indian
Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947.
The Province of Bengal took certain premises'on lease on the
6th February, 1947, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 1,800 and
the purposes for which the lease was entered into were, after 15th
August, 194 7, exclusively purposes of the Province of \Vest Bengal :
Held, that the liability to pay rent was not a "financial obligagation" contemplated by article 9 and the Government of West
Bengal was liable under article 8(2)(a) of the abovesaid order to
pay the rent which had accrued up to the 15th August, 194 7.
Province of 1'Vest Ben.gal v. Midnapnr Zemindari Go., Ltit.
(54 O. W. N. 677), Sree Sree Iswar Madan Gopal Jia v. Province
of West Bengal (54 0. W. N. 807) and The State of P.nnjab v.
L. 111ohanlal Bhayana (A. I. R. 1951 Punj. 382) referred to.
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 119 of 1951.
Appeal by special leave granted by the. Supreme
Coutt of India by its. Order dated 14th December,
•
1
S.C.R.
SUPR~M:ll] COURT REPORTS
379
1950, from the Judgment and Decree dated the 9th
1963
March, 195?, of the High Cour~ of Ju.dicature at Cal- 7.'he Stat:;,,! West
cutta (Harries C. J. and BannerJee J.) m Appeal from
Bengal
Original Decree No. 162 of 1949 arising out of the
v.
Judgment and Decree dated the 4th August, 1949, of
Shaikh
the said High Court (Sinha J.) in its Ordinary Original
Scrajuddin
Civil Jurisdiction in Suit No. 1502 of 1948.
Batley.
S. M. ·Bose, Advocate-General of West Bengal, and
N. C. Chatterjee (B. Sen, with thein) for the appellant.
R. Choudkury. and B. Choudhury for the respondent.
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (G. N.
Joshi and Porus A. Mehta, with him) for the Union of
India.
1953. November 24. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
DAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave by the
State of West Bengal from the judgment and decree
passed on the 9th March, 1950, by a Division Bench
of the Calcutta High Court affirming the judgment and
decree pronounced by Sinha J. on the 4th August,
1949, in exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of that court. The question for consideration
in this appeal is whether on a proper interpretation of
articles 8 and 9 of the Indian Independence (Rights,
Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, the appellant
can be held liable for payment of rent and taxes for a
peyiod priQr to the 15th August, 1947, in respect of a
premises which had been taken on lease by the undivided Province of Bengal.
The relevant facts are shortly these.
By an indenture of lease dated the 22nd February, 1947, the respondent demised to the Governor of the undivided
Province of Bengal the first, second and third floors of
premises No. 73, Dharmatolla Street, in the town of
Calcutta for a term of three years commencing from
the 1st day of February, 1947, yielding and paying
unto the lessor therefor during the said term a
monthly rent of Rs. 1,800 only clear of all deductions
by equal monthly payments on the 5th day of each and
Das J.
380
SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S
[ir/54]
1953
every month for the month immediately preceding
Th S -., IV
and also the sum of Rs. 150 per quarter towards pay-
• tat' o,
"'
f
· '
h
f
. . 1
B
h
Bengal
ment o occupier s s are o mumc1pa taxes.
y t e
v.
lease the lessee covenanted that he would, during the
Shaikh
said term, use the demised premises only for a hostel
Serajuddin
for the students of the Campbell Medical School and
Batley.
shall not at any time during the said term use the
Das J.
demised premises or any part thereof for any other
purpose whatsoever.• The lessee further agreed to pay
the costs of and incidental to the lease.
Oil the 15th
August, 1947, the partition of India took place and,
amongst other things, two new provinces came into
existence, namely, West Bengal and East Bengal, in
place of the old Province of Bengal. The Province of
West Bengal formed part of the Dominion of India
and is nqw the State of West Bengal in the Union of
India while the Province of East Bengal became and
is still a part of the Dominion of Pakistan. The
. .,
lndian Independence Act, 1947, by section9empowered the Governor-General, amongst other things, to
make such provision as appeared to him to be necessary or expedient for dividing between the new provinces to be constituted under that Act the powers,
rights, properties, duties and liabilities of the provinces
which under that Act were to cease to exist. In exercise of that power the Governor-General promulgated
an Order called the Indian Independence (Rights,
Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, hereinafter
--.._
referred to as the said Order, to deal with the powers,
• -
rights, property, duties and liabilities of the respective
Governments of West Bengal and East Bengal. Article 8(2) of that Order, which is material for the purposes of this appeal, was in the following terms :-
"Any contracts made on behalf of the Province of
Bengal before the appointed day shall, as from that
day-
. (a) if the contract is for purposes which as from
that day are exclusively purposes of the Province of
West Bengal, be deemed to have been made on behalf
of that ·Province instead of the Province of Bengal;
aqd
x
•
r
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
381
(b) in any other case be deemed to have been ·
l9S3
made on be~alf of the Province of East Bengal instead The State~! West
of the Provmce of Bengal;
Bengal
and all rights and liabilities which have accrued or
v.
may accrue under any such contract shall, to the
Shaikh
extent to which they would have been rights or liabiSerajuddin
Batley.
Jities of the Province of Bengal, be rights or liabilities
of the Province of West Bengal or the Province of
paaJ.
East Bengal, as the case may be.'?
Clause (6) of article 8 provided that the provisions
of that article would have effect subject to the provisions of article 9 of that Order.
The relevant portion
of article 9 was a.s follows :
"9. All liabilities in respect of such loans, guarantee and other financial obligations of the GovernorGenera] in Council or of a Province as are outstanding
immediately before the appointed day shall as from
that day-
-
(a) ..................................................... .
(b) in the case of liabilities of the Province of
Bengal, be liabilities of the Province of East Bengal."
On the 8th May, 1948, the respondent filed a suit in
the Calcutta High Court against the appellant claiming Rs. 21,600 as arrears of rent at Rs. 1,800 per
month from February, 1947, to January, 1948, Rs. 600
as occupier's share of municipal tax for the same
period and Rs. 523-9-3 being the costs of and inciden·
tal to the lease, aggregating to Rs. 22, 723-9-3. During
the pendency of this suit the appellant paid Rs. 9,250
being the arrears of rent and taxes from the 15th
August, 1947, but denied liability for the arrears of
rent or taxes for any period prior to that date or for
the costs of the ]ease:
The case< was heard by Sinha J., who by his judgment dated the 10th August, 1947, held, amongst other
things, that the lease was entered into for purposes
which as from the 15th August, 1947, were exclusively
purposes of the Province of West Bengal and that
under article 8(2)(a) of the said Order the appellant
was clea,rly liable for the rents which had accrued
previous to the appointeq day, that is to sa;v, the l5th
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
1953
August, 1947, and decreed the suit for Rs. 13,473-9-3
The Stat;;,fWm with costs and interest on judgment at 6 per cent.
Brnyal
The Province of West Bengal preferred an appeal from
v.
that judgment but a Division Bench of the said High
Shaikh
Court (Harries C. J. and Banerjee J.) affirmed the
Serajuddin
decree and dismissed the appeal with costs. The State
Batley.
of West Bengal which took the place of the Province
Das J.
of West Bengal applied for leave to appeal but that
application was dismissed.
The State of West Bengal
thereafter applied for and obtained special leave to
appeal from this court and the appeal has now come
up before us for final disposal.
The learned Advocate-General of West Bengal
appearing in support of this appeal fairly and frankly
conceded that in the absence of anything else this
case would be wholly covered by article 8(2)(a) but
contended that by virtue of article 8(6) that article
was to have effect subject to the provisions of article 9.
In the circumstances the question whether the
contract was for purposes which as from the appointed da,y were exclusively purposes of the Province of
West Bengal and whether article 8(2) made any distinction between liabilities which had accrued or which
might accrue need not be considered.
The argument before us has been confined only to
the interpretation of article 9.
Learned AdvocateGeneral contends that the liability to pay rent under
the lease comes within the expression " other financial
obligations" to be found in that article. According
to him all obligations to pa.y money under a contract
whether by reason of a covenant to pay money or by
way of damages . for breach of contract may be properly described as "financial obligations." It is no
doubt true an obligation to pay monex under a
contract or for breach thereof is in a sense a " financial
obligation " but the question is not what may popularly be described as "financial obligation" but what
is the meaning of the expression "other financial obligations" in the context in which it has been used. To
accept the argument of the learned Advocate-General
wHI be to rob article 8 of practically the whole of it~
1•
1
f
-./
..
S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
383
content excepting claims for injunction or specific per1953
formance of a contract or the like.
Such, we appre- Th St_t_if w
hend, could not have been the intention of the framers
e B::g;l
est
of that article. This difficulty does not arise if the
v.
expression be construed ejusdem generis, for so conShaikh
strued it implies an obligation in the nature of an
Serajuddin
obligation in respect of loans and guarantees incurred
Batley.
or undertaken by the State as held by Harries 0. J. in
d
Da8 J.
Province of West Bengal v. Mi napur Zemindary Co.,
Ltd.(1),
which has been followed by Ohunder J. in
Sree Sree lswar Madan Gopal Jiu v. Province of West
Bengal( 2), and by Kapur J. in The State of Punjab
v. L. Mohan Lal Bhayana (3).
The phrase "loans,
guarantees and other financial obligations" occurred
in section 178 in Part VII of the Government ·of India
Act, 1935, and there cannot be any doubt that those
expressions used in that section did not refer to all
and sundry pecuniary obligations of the State arising
out of contracts of every description.
The loans and
guarantees there referred to meant, it would seem, the
special kinds of contracts relating to the State loans
and State guarantees. In that context "financial
obligations " would mean obligations arising out of
arrangement or .agreements relating to State finance
such as distribution of revenue, the obligation to
grant financial assistance by the Union to any State or
the obligation of a State to make contributions and the
like. It is, however, not necessary or desirable to
attempt an exhaustive definition of the expression ·
"financial obligations. i>
The court will have to con.
sider in each case whether a particular obligation which
may be the subject-matter of discussion falls within
the expression "financial obligations" within the
'meaning of article 9.
Whatever liabilities may or
may not come within that expression we are clearly of
opinion, in agreement with the High Court, that the
liability to pay rent under a lease certainly does not
come within that expression.
(1) 54.C. W. N. 677; 85 C. L. J. 202; A. I. R.1950 Cal.159,
(:!) 54 C. W. N. 807 ..
(3) A. I. R. 1951 Punjab 3~2,
?i
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
19S3
_
The result, therefore, is that we affirm the decision
The state af West of the High Court and dismiss this appeal with costs.
Bengal
v.
Appeal dismissed.
Shaikh
Agent for the appellant: P. K. Bose.
8erajuddin
Batley.
Agent for the respondent: A. N. Mitter.
1953
Nov. 24,
Agent for ~he intervener: G. H. Ra,jadhyak8ha.
RA.TA KULKARNI AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
[PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN,
S.R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.]
Constitution of India, arts. 19(1)(a.) and (c}-Bombay Indu;-
1-,"
trial Relations Act, 1946, ss. 3(32), 12, 13-Industrial Disputes
(Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, ss. 24, 27-Strike pending appealIllega,lity-Olassification of 'Union as "representative" and ''qual?:.
•
fled'' according to percentage of inernbership-Infringenient of fu.nda.
rnenta,l right to frcedoni of speech and to forni a,ssociations.
A strike during the pendency of an appeal would be an illegal
strike under ss. 24 and 25 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate
Tribunal) Act, 1950, even though the appeal io not a valid or
competent one.
The Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, provided that a
union may be registered as a" representative union" if it had a
membership of not less than 15 per cent. of the total number of
employees employed in any industry in any local area and if a
union had a membership of less than rn per cent and not less than
5 per cent. it can be registered only as 'qualified union'' :
Held, that the above provisions did not infringe the fundamen-
. tal right of the workers to freedom of speech and expression and to
form associations or unions ·mder article 19(1)(a) and (c) of the
Constitution. The classification of unions as" representative" and
"qualified" according to the percentage of membership and giving
the right to unions with a membership of not less than 15 per cent.
alone to represent the workers was a reason~ble· classification and
did not infringe the rule of equality before the law.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Cases Nos. 87,
88 and 89 of 1951. Appeals under article 132(1) of ~he
Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order
d1J;ted 8th January, 1951, of the High Court of
•