Summary
By enacting the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 the Parliament brought into force with effect from November 4, 1972, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which was in force in the former State of Punjab with the modifications set out in its schedule in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and validated all actions taken, notifications issued and orders made or purported to have been taken, issued or made under the 1949 Act. Sec. 3 of the Act of 1949 provided that the Central Government may exempt any building from the application of the Act. Under that section the Chief Commissioner of Chandigarh issued a notification dated January 31, 1973 stating that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to buildings, constructed in the urban area of Chandigarh, for a period of five years with effect from the date the sewerage connection is granted in respect of such buildings. This notification was modified by notifications dated September 24, 1973 and Sept. 24, 1974.
The petitioners questioned the validity of s. 3 of the Act of 1949 and notifications issued thereunder on the grounds that s. 3 suffered from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power; that the exemption granted by the notification dated January 3, 1973 as modified by the later notifications was outside the scope of the object and policy of the Act and at the same time discriminatory, and that the power to issue notifications under s. 3 of the Act could be exercised by the Central Government only. It was also urged that the notification had prospective operation.429 Dismissing the petitions,^HELD: Section 3 of the Act does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and is also not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. [439 F]P. J. Irani v. The State of Madras. [1962] 2 S.C.R.169; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanhaiyalal, [1970] 15M.P.L.J. 973; and Sadhu Singh v. The District Board, Gurdaspur & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2594 of 1966 decided on October 29, 1968) referred to.The preamble and the provisions of a statute no doubt assist the Court in finding out its object and policy but its object and policy need not always be strictly confined to its preamble and the provisions contained therein. [440D]In the instant case, the object and policy of the Act appears to be slightly wider than some of the key provisions of the Act namely fixation of fair rent and prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants. The policy and object of the Act generally is mitigation of hardship of tenants. Such mitigation can be attained by several measures, one of them being creation of incentive to persons with capital who are otherwise reluctant to invest in the construction of new buildings in view of the chilling effect of the rent control laws. As a part of the said scheme in order to persuade them to invest in the construction of new buildings exemption is granted to them from the operation of the Act for a short period of five years so that whatever may be the hardship for the time being to the tenants of the new buildings, the new buildings so constructed may after the expiry of the period of exemption be available for the pool of housing accommodation controlled by the Act. The impugned notification is not therefore, ultra vires section 3 of the Act as in its true effect, it advances the scheme, object and purposes of the Act which are articulated in the preamble and the substantive provisions of the Act. Moreover the classification of buildings into exempted buildings and unexempted buildings brought about by the notification bears a just and reasonable nexus to the object to be achieved namely the creation of additional housing accommodation to meet the growing need of persons who have no accommodation to reside or to carry on business and it cannot be considered as discriminatory or arbitrary or unreasonable in view of the shortness of the period of exemption available in the case of each exempted building. [440 E-441 B]Art. 239(1) of the Constitution provides that save as otherwise provided by Parliament by law, Union Territory shall be administered by the President acting through an administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. Under a notification issued on November 1, 1966, the President has directed that the administrator (the Chief Commissioner) shall in relation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh exercise and discharge with effect from November 1, 1966 the powers and functions of the State Government under any law which is extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Act is a State law which is so extended to Union Territory through the Extension Act. It is further seen that s. 3 (8) (b) (iii) of the General Clauses 430Act defines 'Central Government' in relation to the administration of a Union Territory as including the administrator thereof acting within the scope of the authority given to him under Art. 239 of the Constitution.The Union of India which is a party to these proceedings does not dispute the authority of the Chief Commissioner to issue the notification referred to above. Moreover s. 4 of the Extension Act clearly validates the notifications which had been issued or purported to have been issued under the Act before the date of the Extension Act by declaring that they shall be deemed to be valid and effective. [441 G-442E]Uttam Bala Ravankar v. Asstt. Collector of Customs & Central Excise Goa & Anr., [1971]1 S.C.R. 714 referred to.All laws which affect substantive rights generally operate prospectively and there is a presumption against their retrospectivity if they affect vested rights and obligations unless the legislative intent is clear and compulsive Such retrospective effect may be given where there are express words giving retrospective effect or where the language used necessarily implies that such retrospective operation is intended. Hence the question whether a statutory provision has retrospective effect or not depends primarily on the language in which it is couched. If the language is clear and unambiguous effect will have to be given to the provision in question in accordance with its tenor. If the language is not clear then the Court has to decide whether in the light of the surrounding Circumstances retrospective effect should be given to it or not. [443 D-F]In the instant case a reading of the notification does not clearly indicate that the Chief Commissioner intended to grant exemption in respect of any of the buildings constructed prior to January 31, 1973. There was also no compelling reason for giving exemption to buildings which had already been constructed as the object of issuing the notification was only to encourage construction of new buildings thereafter and not to take away the statutory protection already extended to tenants of buildings which had come into existence prior to January 31, 1973. The notification applies only to those buildings which are given sewerage connection or electric connection or which are occupied, as the case may be, on or after January 31, 1973.[443 H-444 F; 346 C]The notification impugned in the instant case stands by itself and it is not to be construed in the background of the provision of s. 2 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. [446A]Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vajendrapal Gupta, [1982] 2S.C.C. 61; Ratan Lal Shinghal v. Smt. Murti Devi, (A.I.R.1980 S.C. 635); Shri Ram Saroop Rai v. Smt. Lilavati, [1980]3 S.C.C. 452; Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Gupta Mill Workers Union,[1953] S.C.R. 439; Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta. v. W.R. Nathu & Ors., [1963]1 S.C.R. 721; and Income- Tax Officer, Alleppey v. M.C. Ponnoose & Ors., [1970] 1S.C.R. 678 referred to.431See the full content of this document
Extract
M/s Punjab Tin Supply Co., Chandigarh Etc. Etc. VS. The Central Government & Ors.
PETITIONER: M/S PUNJAB TIN SUPPLY CO., CHANDIGARH ETC. ETC.Vs.RESPONDENT: THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT20/10/1983BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)SEN, A.P. (J)CITATION: 1984 AIR 87 1984 SCR (1) 428 1984 SCC (1) 206 1983 SCALE (2)503CITATOR INFO : R 1984 SC 121 (31)R 1986 SC 244 (7,14,15)F 1987 SC2117 (28,31)D 1992 SC1806 (7)ACT: The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as modified by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act. 1974- Sec. 3-Validity of.Whether Union Territory of Chandigarh, Home Department Notification No. 352-LD-73/602 dated January 31, 1973 as modified by notifications dated September 24, 1973 and Sept.24,1974 issued under sec. 3 valid Whether Notifications operate prospectively.Interpretation of statutes-Rule of-Object and policy of statute need not always be strictly confined to preamble and provisions of statute.Interpretation of statutes-Rule of-Whether a statute operates retrospectively-Does not depend primarily on language of statute-Court to see surrounding circumstances.JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 6372-80, 9604, 9935-41, 9943-44, 9946-56 and 10001 of 1982, 13-18, 83, 393, 410, 682, 914-25, 928, 1108-11, 2742-52, 2770, 2898, 3330-33, 3362, 3543, 3875-79, 3941, 3946, 3950, 4241, 4242, 4815-16, 4826, 4829, 4834-37, 5183, 5574, 5717, & 7891 of 1983, 7016, 8189-8206 & 9346 of 1982, 4614-20, 5188, 5845, 7489, 8212, 8612, 8875-76, 8886-88, 8268-69, 8348-50, 8382, 8384, 9082-83, 9094, 9129, 9133, 9134, 9145, 9147, 9262, 9562, 9862,9864 and 9876-78 of 1983.(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India) Advocates For The Petitioners: O.P. Verma ...
See the full content of this document