# l~G Ham/al Kapur cl: So1111 (f'J Ltd v. Ram Nallt

- **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 242
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. l'etn. No. 71/D of 1954
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, c. J .. P. B. GAJF.NllRAGADKAR, TC N. \VAxcnoo, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR nnd T. L. YENIL\T, \ It.DIA An-AR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/l-g-ham-al-kapur-cl-so1111-f-j-ltd-v-ram-nallt-2681
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Suprenze Courl--Ap111ication for .eptcial lcflre-DeTaJ1Condo11a1i'on--;.'·cces.~ity to
gh·c notice .1o rtspondtnt bPfore
n1aki11q
nrder-S11pre?ne Court R11lra, 1950, 0 .• Y.lll, r. 1.
prnri"o ( r).
Against the judgment of the Single Judge of the Punjab
High Court dated January 5, 195j, in which he followed the
de<·ision of a Di\·ision Bench holding thats. 7/\ of the Delhi
and Ajmcr Rent Control :\ct, 194 7, \Va" unconstitutional and
\'oid, the appellants preferred an appeal under the Letters
Patent.
~leanwhile the judgment or the Division Bench
was brought up by way or appeal to the Supreme Court, and
as the appeal was getting ready to be heard, the appellants
nlade an application on January 3, 1959, for special leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the
Single Judge.
~o notice was give"n to the respondent to
the
application, and special leave ,.;as granted
cx-parte.
'fhe Letters Patents appeal was therraftcr withdrawn by the
appellants. \\'htn the appt>al came on for hearing in due course,
the respondent r:liot.rd an objection to the hc<iring of the
appeal on die ;.:ro11nd" th;\t the application for special leave
\VclS barred by limitation, that there ''·ere no sufficient r~a
sons for condoniu; the ldll.,:;' delay of four years, and that the
~pecial leave g-rantecl ex-pa rte should be CC\'okccl.
-.....,,..
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
243
Jleld, that, in the peculiar circumstances or the case,
leave should not be revoked.
Expect in very rare cases, if not invariable, the Supreme
Court should adopt as a settle rule that the delay in making
an application for special leave should not condoned ex-.parte
but that before granting leave in such cases notice should
be served on the respondent and the latter afforded an oppor·
!unity to resist the grant of the leave.
Desirability of the Rules of the Supreme Court being
amended suitably pointed out.
CIVIL APPELLATJ<J JURISDICTION~ Civil Appeal
No. 470 of 19tll.
Appeal by special leave from judgment and
order dated January 5,
1955, of the Punjab
High Court of (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil
Misc. l'etn. No. 71/D of 1954.
N. O. OhaUerjee, Hardayal Hardy and N. N.
Keswani, for the appellant .
•
R. S. Narula, (or the respondents Nos. 1
to a.
1962. April 18. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
AYYANGAR, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave against a judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the Punjab High Court holding that s. 7 A of the
Delhi. and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1947 (herein·
after called the Act), was unconstitutional as viola·
tive of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 14
of the Constitution.
The first respondent Ram Nath owns a
building in Delhi of which, among others, the
appellant-company was a tenant. The appellant
moved the Rent Controller, Delhi, under s. 7A of
the Act for fixation of the fair Tent of the portion
in its occupation. These proceedings have had a
chequered history which it is not material to set
out, but suffice it to say that the Rent Controller,
J!JG3
Roml,1l Kapur
&; S .ns ( P) Ltd.
v.
R~m N th
Ayμnzar J.
l~G ..
Ham/al Kapur
cl: So1111 (f'J Ltd
v.
Ram Nallt.
AyJ41tlOT J.
241
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963)
Delhi, computed the fair rent for the entire building
at Rs. 565/- p. m. and the fair rent payable by the
appellant at Rs. 146/- per month. It is necessary
to mention that under the Act the Rent Controller
would have had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application for the fixation of fair rent and
for so fixing it only if the construction of the
building in question was completed after March 24,
194 7, but if the construction of the building was
completed earlier the ordinary Civil Courts and not
the !:tent Controller would have had jurisdiction to
determine the matter. The date of the completion
of the first respondent's building therefore loomed
large in the enquiry before the Rent Controller and
tba.t authority recorded e. finding on this matter
adverse to the first respondent in hie order.
The landlord-fi

## Text

19G:!
R 'fl1hulhi f ,,/,:o1thirtlaa
i > Jdangat.:~'.'"
,•wt/tll!JI
••
Tht State of ~llysot1
Ua}e111/r,todkar J,
,<pril JR.
~-12
~PPRF.i\IF, COTTR't" REPORTS [l!l63]
l!<'ncral rnlc. Th11.t, in A•ibstancc, is tho view which
the Mysore High Court ha~ taken in tho matter
and we think tl1at tho said view is right.
In the n•snlt, t.hc app~al fails and is dismissed
with costs.
Appenl dismi.9sed.
RA:\£ LAL KAPUR AND SONS (P)LTD.
1.'•
RAM NATI! AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J .. P. B. GAJF.NllRAGADKAR, TC N.
\VAxcnoo, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR nnd
T. L. YENIL\T,\ It.DIA An-AR, J J.)
Suprenze Courl--Ap111ication for .eptcial lcflre-DeTaJ1Condo11a1i'on--;.'·cces.~ity to
gh·c notice .1o rtspondtnt bPfore
n1aki11q
nrder-S11pre?ne Court R11lra, 1950, 0 .• Y.lll, r. 1.
prnri"o ( r).
Against the judgment of the Single Judge of the Punjab
High Court dated January 5, 195j, in which he followed the
de<·ision of a Di\·ision Bench holding thats. 7/\ of the Delhi
and Ajmcr Rent Control :\ct, 194 7, \Va" unconstitutional and
\'oid, the appellants preferred an appeal under the Letters
Patent.
~leanwhile the judgment or the Division Bench
was brought up by way or appeal to the Supreme Court, and
as the appeal was getting ready to be heard, the appellants
nlade an application on January 3, 1959, for special leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the
Single Judge.
~o notice was give"n to the respondent to
the
application, and special leave ,.;as granted
cx-parte.
'fhe Letters Patents appeal was therraftcr withdrawn by the
appellants. \\'htn the appt>al came on for hearing in due course,
the respondent r:liot.rd an objection to the hc<iring of the
appeal on die ;.:ro11nd" th;\t the application for special leave
\VclS barred by limitation, that there ''·ere no sufficient r~a
sons for condoniu; the ldll.,:;' delay of four years, and that the
~pecial leave g-rantecl ex-pa rte should be CC\'okccl.
-.....,,..
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
243
Jleld, that, in the peculiar circumstances or the case,
leave should not be revoked.
Expect in very rare cases, if not invariable, the Supreme
Court should adopt as a settle rule that the delay in making
an application for special leave should not condoned ex-.parte
but that before granting leave in such cases notice should
be served on the respondent and the latter afforded an oppor·
!unity to resist the grant of the leave.
Desirability of the Rules of the Supreme Court being
amended suitably pointed out.
CIVIL APPELLATJ<J JURISDICTION~ Civil Appeal
No. 470 of 19tll.
Appeal by special leave from judgment and
order dated January 5,
1955, of the Punjab
High Court of (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil
Misc. l'etn. No. 71/D of 1954.
N. O. OhaUerjee, Hardayal Hardy and N. N.
Keswani, for the appellant .
•
R. S. Narula, (or the respondents Nos. 1
to a.
1962. April 18. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
AYYANGAR, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave against a judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the Punjab High Court holding that s. 7 A of the
Delhi. and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1947 (herein·
after called the Act), was unconstitutional as viola·
tive of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 14
of the Constitution.
The first respondent Ram Nath owns a
building in Delhi of which, among others, the
appellant-company was a tenant. The appellant
moved the Rent Controller, Delhi, under s. 7A of
the Act for fixation of the fair Tent of the portion
in its occupation. These proceedings have had a
chequered history which it is not material to set
out, but suffice it to say that the Rent Controller,
J!JG3
Roml,1l Kapur
&; S .ns ( P) Ltd.
v.
R~m N th
Ayμnzar J.
l~G ..
Ham/al Kapur
cl: So1111 (f'J Ltd
v.
Ram Nallt.
AyJ41tlOT J.
241
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963)
Delhi, computed the fair rent for the entire building
at Rs. 565/- p. m. and the fair rent payable by the
appellant at Rs. 146/- per month. It is necessary
to mention that under the Act the Rent Controller
would have had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application for the fixation of fair rent and
for so fixing it only if the construction of the
building in question was completed after March 24,
194 7, but if the construction of the building was
completed earlier the ordinary Civil Courts and not
the !:tent Controller would have had jurisdiction to
determine the matter. The date of the completion
of the first respondent's building therefore loomed
large in the enquiry before the Rent Controller and
tba.t authority recorded e. finding on this matter
adverse to the first respondent in hie order.
The landlord-first respondent preferred an
appeal against the order of the Rent Controller to
the learned District Judge, Delhi, but the appeal
was dismissed. Thereafter he moved the High Court
of the Punjab under Art. ~27 of the Constitution
challenging the correctness and propriety of every
finding by the Rent Controller and of the District
Judge on appeal. Thie petition ca.me on for hearing
before e. learned Single Jud~e of the High Court.
A Division Bench of the High Court had sometime
previously held in another batch of cases (British
.Medical Stores' v. Bhagirath ]lfal) (1) a.rising under
the Act, that s. 7 A was unconstitutional and
void and following this decision he allowed the
petitien oi the first respondent and set aside the
order of the Rent Controller as without jurisdiction,
without considering the other matters which would
arise if the section was valid and the Rent Controller had jurisdiction. From this decision of the
learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred an
appeal under the Letters Pe.tent to a Division
Bench.
(I) [195~] I. L It. I Puojab, 639.
' _, ..
'
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
245
' Mean while the judgement in British Medical
Stores v. Bhagirath Mal(') was brought np by way
of appeal to this Cou~t, and as the appeal was
getting ready to be heard, the appellanta applied
for and obtained special leave to appeal to this
Court even during the pendency in the High "Court,
of the appeal by it under tha Letters Patent. The
Letters Patent appeal was thereafter withdrawn
by the appellant.
The appeal in the Briti,ah Medical
Stor~
case (') was heard by this Court an<!. the same was
allowed by a judgment dated August 2, 1961, aqd
this Court held reversing the judgment of the
Punjab High Court that s. 7 A of the Act was
valid (2).
It would thus be seen that the only point
which the learned Judge considered and on which
the revision petition of the landlord-first respondent
was allowed no longer subsists and hence the appel·
lant is entitled to have the appeal allowed. As the
learned Single Judge did not consider the other
objeotions raised by the first respondent to the
otder of the Controller fixing the standard fair rent
· payable by the appellant, the appeal has to be
remanded to the High Court for being dealt with
according to law.
·
Before concluding it is necessary to advert to
a preliminary objection to the hearing of t.bti appeal
raised by learnetl Counsel for the Jandlord.respon·
·dent. His submission was that the special leave
which was granted by this Court exparte should be
revoked as having been improperly obtained. The
facts in relation thereto were these. The judgment
of the learned Single Judge to appeal from which
the leave was granted was dated January 5, 1955,
and the application to this Court seeking leave was
(I) (19SSJ l.L.R. 8 Punjab 639.
(21
See R•shanL·I Mlhr.u.JshwarDass [l962J 2 S, C.R. 947.
1961
Rt1t11/ol KapUI'
dl Sons (P) Lti·
v.
R11tn Na.fh
.1,, .. ,., J.
1962
Roml·/ Koptl'I'
d: s.., (P) LJd.
••
lioin N .Ila
246
i:iUP.REME COURT REPOHTS (IlllJ3j
made on January 5, 195!.l, i.e., nfLcr a lapse of four
years. It is obvious thl\t it waA an applicat10n
which had been filed far beyond the period of
limitation proscribed by the rules of this Court .
Learned Counael for the reApondent urged that
there were no sufficient grounds for condon;ng that
long delay and that we should therefore revoke
the leave.
We are not disposed to accede to this request
for revoking the leave in tho peculiar circumstances
of this case.
Learned Counsel invited our attention to a few drciaions in which leave granted exparte was revoked at the stage of the hearing of tho
appeal on an objection raised by the respondent;
but we do not consider that the facts of the present
appeal bear any analogy to those in the decisions
cited.
In the first place, there was no by·p81!8ing
the High Court, because the appellant had filed an
appeal under the Letters Patent and it was during
the pendency of that appeal that he moved this
Court for leave.
Next, there was no suppression of
!\DY fact which would have relevance to the granting or withholding of the leave, and the exact
position as it stood at the time the petition was
tiled was eet out in it. Thirdly, it is obvious that
if the delay had not been condoned and leave
refused when application therefor was made in
January 1959, the appellant would have prosecuted
his Letters Patent appeal and he could obviously
have come up here if the decision went against him.
In fact, the grant of special leave in the circumstall··
oes of this case, merely served to shorten the proceedings, a.od this Court acceded to the petition for
leave obviously because the appeal in this Court
froln judgments in the ca.se of the British Medical
.~torea el,c, (l) were getting ready for hearing and
there wae some advantage if the appellant wae in
a position to intervene in those other appeals. In
(I) (19SS) l.L.R. 8 Punjab t.3).
,.
(.
-
·-
..
~ S.O.R.
SUPREME OOUR'l' REPORTS
247
view of these considerations we a.re of the opinion
that this is not a case in which the leave should
he revoked.
NevertheleBB, we consider that we should add
that, except in very rare cases, if not invariably, it
should be proper that this Court should adopt as a
settled rule that the delay in making an application
for special leave should not be condoned ex.parte
but that before granting leave in such oases notice
should be served on the respondent and the latter
afforded an opportunity to resist the grant of the
leave. Such a. oobrse besides being just, would be
preferable to having to decide applications for .
revoking leave on the ground that the delay in
making the same was improperly condoned yea.rs
after the grant of the leave when the Court naturally feels embarraBSed by the injustice which would
be caused to the appellant if leave were then revoked when he would he deprived of the opportunity
of pursuing other remedies if leave had been refused
earlier. We would suggest that the rules of the
Court should be amended suitably to achieve this
purpose.
The result is that the appeal is allowed &nd
the order of the learned Single Judge accepting the
revision petition under Art. 227 preferred by the
·landlord-first respondent is set aside. The case is
remanded to the High Court for considering the
petition of the respondent in accordance with law
and on the footing that s. 7 A of the Rent Control
Act is a valid piece of legislation.
It is admitted that the point as regards the
constitutionality of P.. 7 A of the Rent Control Act
was not raised by the landlord-respondent, and in
the circumstances of the case we direct the parties
to bear their own costs in this Court. The costs
in the High Court will be as directed by that
Oourt.
' Ramlal l\opur
&I Sant (P) Ltd.
••
RamJlath
-
AyμagarJ.