Skip to content


Dattaram N. Anvekar Vs. Shankar L. Parulekar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. No. 2859 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1981Kant103
ActsKarnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Sections 5(2); Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - Sections 2(15), 3 and 4(3)
AppellantDattaram N. Anvekar
RespondentShankar L. Parulekar
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [ram mohan reddy, j] quantum of compensation bodily injury - held, bodily injury is to be treated as deprivation entitling the claimant to damages, the amount of which varies according to the gravity of the injury. deprivation due to injuries brings with it there consequences, viz., (i) loss of earning and earning capacity; (ii) expenses to pay others for what otherwise he would do for himself; (iii) loss or diminution in full pleasures and joys of living. further, although it is not possible to equate money with human suffering or personal deprivation, the court has duty to make an attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. while considering deprivation, the court should have regard to the gravity and.....acts/rules/orders: karnataka rent control act, 1961 - section 5(2); karnataka municipalities act, 1964 - sections 2(15), 3 and 4(3)opinion malimath, j. 1. the division bench consisting of the chief justice .and justice bopanna has referred the following question for the opinion of the full bench; 'if any area has been newly added to any village, municipal area or notified area specified in schedule 11 to the karnataka rent control act. 1961, by means of an appropriate, notification issued under the provisions of the law governing municipalities or village panchayats and local boards, is a separate notification under sub-section (5) of section 2 of that act necessary to make the provisions of that act applicable to that newly added area?'2. a division bench of this cour4, of which one of.....
Judgment:
Acts/Rules/Orders:

Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Section 5(2); Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - Sections 2(15), 3 and 4(3)

OPINION

Malimath, J.

1. The Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice .and Justice Bopanna has referred the following question for the opinion of the Full Bench; 'If any area has been newly added to any village, municipal area or notified area specified in Schedule 11 to the Karnataka Rent Control Act. 1961, by means of an appropriate, notification issued under the provisions of the law governing municipalities or village Panchayats and Local Boards, is a separate notification under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of that Act necessary to make the provisions of that Act applicable to that newly added area?'

2. A Division Bench of this Cour4, of which one of us was a member, has answered this question in the affirmative in Balwant Shamrao Deshrande v. Sadashiv Haripant Kulkarrd, . But the referring Bench, felt that the, said decision requires re-consideration in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court. In the order of reference, the Division Bench has given the citation of the decision of the Supreme Court as Nalanda Ceramic and Industries Ltd., v. N. S. Choudhury and Co. (P.) Ltd., . That decision has no bearing on the question. We are satisfied that the Division Bench really intended to refer to the decision on the next page, i.e., Nandlal v. Motilal, , Learned Counsel appearing for both the sides also concur with us.

3. The petitioner filed Small Cause Suit No. 101 of 1976 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum for possession of the suit house situate in Angol Extension of the City of Belgaurn, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. The respondent tenant resisted the suit inter alia contending that as the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are applicable, the suit is not maintainable. The petitioner, however, took the stand that though item-1 of Schedule II of the Act is applicable to Belgaum Municipal Borough area, the Act is not applicable to the suit -property, as it is situate to Angol Extension, which area came to be included within the Belgaum Municipal Borough, under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. 1925, which was then in force. long after the II schedule to the Act came into force. He further submitted that as no notification by the State Government has been issued under sub-section (5) of Section 2 applying the provision of Part II of the Act to Angol Extension, the Act is not applicable and that, therefore, the suit is maintainable. In support of his contention the petitioner relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Balawant's case. But it was contended on behalf of the respondent that the decision of this Court in Balawant's case is no more good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Nandlal's case. In view of these rival contentions, the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that he has no jurisdiction to go into the question of jurisdiction under the provisions of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964. Consequently, the learned Civil Judge made an order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. It is the said order that is challenged by the petitioner landlord under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on both the sides submitted that the Angol Extension, where the suit property is situate, was not within the Belgaum Municipal Borough on the date on which the Act and Schedule II came into force and further that the said area came to be included within the Belgaum Municipal Borough under the relevant provision of the Bombay Municipal Borough Act, 1925 which was then in force during the relevant time, after the 11 Schedule came into force. In Balawant's case. the division bench of this Court examining a similar question held that the expression' Belgaum Municipality Borough' used in item 1 of Schedule II of the Act is only a description of area to which Part V has been made applicable and that therefore, if any area is added to the Belgaum Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 subsequent to the coming into force of the II Schedule, the Act will not become automatically applicable automatically applicable to the extended area. The Division Bench has further held that a further notification under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act is necessary to make the provisions of Part V of the Act applicable to the Extended area. The question for consideration is as to whether the view taken by the Division Bench requires reconsideration in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Nandlal's case.

5. Nandlal's case arose under the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act (11 of 1946). Section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C. P. Act') provides:

'2. Regulation of Letting and subletting, etc., - The Provincial Government may, by general or special order, which shall extend to such areas as the Provincial Government may, by notification. direct, provide for regulating the letting and subletting of any accommodation or class of accommodation whether residential or non-residential whether furnished or unfurnished and whether with or without board and in particular:-

(a) for controlling the rents for such accommodation either generally or when let to specified persons or classes of persons or in specified circumstances.

(b) for preventing the eviction of tenants or sub-tenants from such accommodation in specified circumstances,

(c) for requiring such accommodation to be let either generally, or to specified persons or classes of persons, or in specified circumstances, and

(d) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating -any of the aforesaid matters.'

In exercise of the power conferred by Section 2 of the C. P. Act, the Provincial Government issued an order to the effect that the Chapters of the C. P. Act specified in column 72 of the table below shall extend to the areas specified into the corresponding entries in column 3 of the said table. The order was issued by the State Government on the 26th of July, 1949 directing. inter alia, that Chapter I of the Rent Control Order shall extend to the whole of the Central Provinces and Berar (and the States integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar), and Chapters II and IV shall extend to ............

(a) All the Municipalities in the Central Provinces and Berar and the States integrated with the Central Provinces and Berar. The area of Tiroda was declared to be a Municipality by a notification dated June 12, 19H and was not a Municipality when the aforesaid notification was issued under Section 2 of that Act, It is in this context that the Supreme Court examined this question and held as follows:- 'The validity of the notification which was issued on July 26, 1949, under Section 2 of the Act, has not been challenged before us, so that there can be no doubt that while Chapter I became applicable to the whole, of the Central Provinces and Berar and the integrated States, Chapters II and IV became applicable to all Municipalities in that State with effect from that date. Tiroda was not a Municipality at that time and did not come within the purview of the notification. But it became a Municipality on June 12. 1956 and the notification became applicable to it from that date. We therefore see no justification for the argument that the notification was confined to these Municipalities which were in existence on July 26, 1949, and that a fresh notification was necessary to extend the benefit of the Rent Control Order to a subsequently constituted Municipality. There is nothing in the wordings of the notification to justify any such argument. On the other hand, the wordings of the notification are quite unambiguous and there is no reason why they should not be given their simple and natural meaning. They clearly provide that Chapters II and IV of the Rent Control Order extend to 'all the Municipalities' in the State. As Tiroda was constituted as a Municipality on June 12, 1956, the provisions of these chapters became applicable to it from that date ......'

One thing that becomes clear from a close reading of the Judgment of the Supreme Court is that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have not laid down a general proposition of law to the effect that if the Act is made applicable on a particular date to a specified area of a particular description that the Act will automatically become applicable to further areas that may be added to the originally specified area under some other provision of law. The decision of the Supreme Court is only on the construction of the relevant portion of the notification issued on the 26th July 1949 under Section 2 of the C. P. Act. The notification which- the Supreme Court examined provided that Chapters II and IV of the Rent Control Order shall extend to all the municipalities in the Central Provinces and Berar and the integrated States with the Central Provinces in Berar. . As Chapters II and IV were made applicable to all the municipalities, the Supreme Court construed the said notification as having the effect of making Chapters II and IV applicable not only to the municipalities that were in existence on the date of the order but also to municipalities that came into existence after the issue of the, order. The Supreme Court came to that conclusion because the notification provided that Chapters II and INX shall extend to all the municipalities in the State. The Supreme Court has pointed out that the wordings of the notification am quite unambiguous and there, is no reason why they should not be given their simple and natural meaning to the expression 'all the municipalities' in the State. As Tiroda was constituted as a Municipality on June 12, 1956, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of these Chapters became applicable from that date. Schedule II to the Act with which we are concerned does not provide that Parts IV and V of the Act are applicable to all the municipalities in the State. Whereas, the notification' issued under the C. P. Act makes the Provisions of Chapters II and IV of the Rent Control Order applicable to all the Municipalities, Schedule 11 of the Act, with which we are concerned, makes it clear that Parts IV and V are not applicable to all the Municipalities in the State. Schedule II enumerates 61 items of areas to which Parts IV and V of the Act are made applicable and reads as follows:-

'SCHEDULE II

1. Belgaum Municipal Borough,

2. Belgaum Cantonment,

3. Nipani Municipal Borough,

4. Athani Municipal District,

5. Gokak Municipal District,

6. Saundatti-Yellamma Municipal District,

7. Bailhongal Municipal District,

8. Bijapur Municipal Borough,

9. Bagalkot Municipal District,

10. Dharwad Municipal Borough,

11. Hubli Municipal Borough,

12. Gadag-Betgeri Municipal Borough,

13. Haveri Municipal District,

14. Ranebennur Municipal District,

15. Navaleund Municipal District,

16. Nargund Municipal District,

17. Byadagi Municipal District.

18. Guddguddpur Municipal District,

19. Kalaghatgi-Bendigere village,

20. Karaigi-Chikmagadur village,

21. Hangal village,

22. Ron village,

23. Mundargi village,

24. The Revenue village of Bankapur,

25. The Revenue village of Kod,

26. Ga.jendragad village,

27. Annigeri village,

28. Hirekerur village,

29. Shiggaon village,

30. Karwar Municipal District,

31. Kurnta Municipal District,

32. Gokarn Town Panchayat Area,

33. Bhatkal Municipal District,

34. Sirsi Municipal District,

35. Ankola Panchayat Group,

36. Siddapur Panchayat Group,

37. Jamkhandi Municipal District,

38. Rabkavi Banhatti Municipal District,

39. Halival Municipal District,

40. Municipalities and Notified Areas in Kodagu District,

41. Gulbarga Munich)alitv,

42. Raichur Municipality,

43. Bidar Municipality,

44. Aland, Gulbarga District,

45. Shorapur, Gulbarga District,

46. Sedam, Gulbarga District,

47. Yadgir, Gulbarga District,

48. Manealore Municipality,

49. Udupi Municipality,

50. Kollegal Panchayat Area,

51. Coondapur Panchayat Area,

52. Karkal Panchayat Area,

53. Puttur Panchayat Area,

54. Non-Municipal Areas of Mulki and Buntwal,

55. Mudbidri,

56. Cities of Mysore, Davangere and Bellary,

57. City of Bangalore and an area within a radius of two miles from the Municipal limits of the City.

58. The Kolar Gold Fields Sanitary Board Areas,

59. The towns of Kolar, Tumkur, Chitradurga, Shimoga, Chikmanagalur, Hassan, Mandya,Bangarapet.

Chintamni, Chikballapur, Tiptur, Harihar, Sagar, Arsikere, Sakieshpur, Naniangud, Hospet, Devanahalli,

Doddaballapur, Telamangala, Magadi, Channapatna,Ramanaga Kanakapura, Anekal, Srinivasapur, Gauribidanur, Turuvekere, Kunicipal, Hiriyur, Hunsur, Chamarajanagar, Srirangapatna,Nagamangala, Krishnarajapet, Malavalli, Maddur, Belur, Arkalgud, Holenarasipur,Channaravapatna,kadur, Tarikere, Koppa, Narasim' harajapura, Sringeri, Thirthahalli, Challakere, Molakalmuru,Honnali, Shikaripur,Channagiri,Koratagere, Madhugiri and Gubbi.

60. Pandavapur,

61. Bhadravathi Old Town and Bhadravathi New Board Area, excluding New Town, and Paper Town.'

All the 61 items are not described with reference to the areas of the respective Municipalities. A bear reading of Schedule II clearly indicates that Parts IV and V are made applicable to Only some of the municipal areas in the State, There are municipal areas in the State to which Parts IV and V of the Act have not been made applicable. Schedule II shows that Parts IV and V of the Act have been made applicable to areas of different description such as Municipal areas, revenue villages, Panchayat areas, notified areas, sanitary board areas, towns and cities and the City of Bangalore and an area within a radius of two miles from the municipal limits of the City. All the areas included in Schedule II are not municipal areas. It is, therefore, clear that the Scheme of the II Schedule of the Act with which we are concerned is not similar to the Scheme of the Rent Control Order dated 26-7-1949 issued under Section 2 of the C. P. Act. The decision of the Supreme Court cannot, therefore, be applied for construing Schedule II to the Act, with which we are concerned.

6. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 Provides that Parts IV and V of the Act shall be applicable to the areas specified in Schedule II and sub-section (4) of Section 2 provides that Part VI of, the Act shall be applicable to the areas specified in Schedule III. If the principle laid down by the Supreme Court is applicable to Schedule II of the Act it should be applicable to-Schedule III of the Act also. Item 10 in Schedule II is Dhaxvrar Municipal Borough and item 11 is Hubli Municipal Borough. But in Schedule III, which consists only five items, Dharwar Municipal Borough is not included though Hubli Municipal Borough is included as item 4. Hubble and Dharwar are two cities in the District of Dharwar. Dharwar is not only the Taluka headquarter of Dharwar Taluka but is also the head quarter of the District of Dharwar. Hubli City which is 12 miles from Dharwar is the Taluk Headquarters of Hubli Taluk. Under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. 1925, separate Municipal Boroughs were constituted for each of these cities and were in existence for several decades. Subsequently a single Municipal Corporation came to be constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 by the new Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation. It was constituted not only in respect of the areas of the Hubli-Municipal Borough and Dharwar Municipal Borough but also in respect of a strip of area connecting both the areas. The said strip was not part of either Municipal Boroughs. Now if the principle laid down in the Supreme Court decision is applied to Schedule II, Parts IV and V of the Act will be applicable to the Borough and also to the strip connecting the two areas. Now let us apply the same Principle to Schedule III. In this schedule, Dharwar Municipal Borough is not included though it is included in Schedule II. Now if we apply the principle of item 4 of Schedule III. i.e., to Hubli Municipal Borough, it means that Part VI of the Act will become applicable to the former Dharwar Municipal Borough area and also to the connecting strip. This leads to an absurd result not contemplated by the legislature. When it was possible to include Dharwar Municipal Borough in Schedule III the legislature in its wisdom did not include it in Schedule II and thus expressed its intention not to apply Part VI to Dharwar Municipal Borough area. But if the decision of the Supreme Court is applied to Schedule III, it will result in applying Part VI of the Act to Dharwar Municipal Borough Area. Contrary to the intention of the legislature. Now let us also examine the situation when a particular area is excluded from the Municipal area or area of other description included in Schedule II. Can it be said that Part VI of the Act ceases to apply to such excluded area? Kolar Gold Fields Sanitary Board area is included in Schedules I and II of the Act. Subsequently Robertson pet Town Municipality was constituted for a Part of the K. G. F. Sanitary Board Area. But the Robertson pet Municipality is not included in Schedules I and II and no notification has been issued under subsection (5) of Section 2 of the Act making any of the Provisions of the Act applicable to the new constituted Municipal area- Justice Kalagate held in C. Kanvalal Daga v. G..Udaichand, (1966) 2 Mys LJ 710 that the relevant, part Of the Act will continue to apply to that area.: which was Part of the Sanitary Board area and came to be included in the newly constituted municipal area. The Principle on which the said decision rests is that what is contained in the schedule is the description of the areas to which the relevant provisions of the Act are made applicable and that, therefore, if any area is subsequently excluded from that area under any other law, the provisions of the Act will not automatically cease to be applicable to the newly excluded area. If two constructions are possible then the one which reflects the intention of the legislature must be preferred. If the aforesaid decision did not reflect the intention of the legislature, appropriate remedial action would have been taken by the State by this time. The same can also be said about the decision in Balawant's case . The decision rendered in the year 1974 was reported in the year 1975 in the Karnataka Law Journal. If the said decision did not reflect the intention of the legislature, the Act could have been amended or a suitable notification under Section 2 (5) of the Act could have been issued. That no such action has been taken for all these years is another circumstance which supports the contention that the view taken in Balawant's case is correct.

7. It was lastly contended on the basis of Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 that provisions of Parts VI and V of the Act became automatically applicable to the area newly added under Section 4(1). Sub-section (1) provides for inclusion or exclusion from the Municipality any local area. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 on which reliance is placed reads as follows:

'(3) When a local area is included in any municipality, this Act and all notifications, rules, bye-laws, orders. resolution, directions and Powers (including any tax levied) issued, made or conferred under this Act, or any other law applicable to such municipality shall apply to the said area from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1)'.

This sub-section will apply only if any other law is applicable to the 'Municipality'. Unless the context otherwise requires the word 'Municipality' is defined in Section 2(15) to mean any local area which may be constituted or declared as a city or a town municipality under Section 3 and includes any local area which is deemed to be a City or a town Municipality under the provisions of the Act, if such Municipality has not ceased to be a City or a Town Municipality. Having regard to the context, there is no scope for applying. the definition given in Section 2(15) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The legislature has in our opinion used the expression 'Belgaum Municipal Borough' in item No. 1 of the Schedule II as a convenient mode of describing or identifying the precise area to which Parts IV and V of the Act are made applicable. The expression 'Belgaum Municipal Borough' cannot in the context be understood as meaning 'Municipality' as defined in Section 2(15) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on Section 4(3) of the Municipalities Act for the contention that Parts IV and V of the Act become automatically applicable to the area extended under Section 3 of the Municipalities Act.

8. In Balawant's case this Court has. on a thorough examination of the provisions of the Act, come to the conclusion that the legislature has used the expression 'Belgaurn Municipal Borough' in item 1 of Schedule II to the Act to describe the area to which Parts IV and V of the Act have been made applicable and those words cannot be understood as meaning municipality' as defined in Section 2(15). Consequently, it has held that if any area is added to the Belgaurn Municipal Borough subsequent to the coming into force of Schedule II under Mysore Municipalities Act, 1964, the Act does not automatically become applicable to the newly added area and that the Act can be made applicable to the newly added area only by issue of an appropriate notification under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act. In other opinion the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Balawant's case lays down the law correctly and does not require reconsideration consequent upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nandlal's case.

For the reasons stated above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative.

Rama Jois, J.

9. I have read the opinion of my Lord Malimath, J. but with great respect to his Lordship, I do not agree that a separate notification under Subsection (5) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is necessary to bring the provisions of the Act into force in any area on its inclusion in any Municipal area specified in II Schedule to the Act. Reasons for my conclusion are as follows:

10. Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 2 of the Act and the relevant part of II Schedule read:

'2. Application of the Act,

(1) and (2) ** ***

(3) Parts IV and V of the Act shall be applicable to the areas Specified in Schedule II.

(4) * * * *

(5) The State Government may. by notification, apply all or any of the provisions of Parts II, III, IV, V or VI to such other areas from such dates as may be specified in the notification'.

(Underlining by me)

'SCHEDULE II

(See Section 2 (3) )

1. Belgaum Municipal Borough.

* * * *'

Sub-section (3) of Section 2 provides that Parts IV and V of the Act applies to areas specified in II Schedule. Part IV deals with deposit of rent and Part V of the Act contains provisions, which control the eviction of tenants. Belgaum Municipal Borough, which was constituted as such under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act. 1925, was specified in II Schedule. Therefore, Part V came into force in the area covered by Belgaum Municipal Borough on 31-12-1961 on which date the Act came into force. The Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force on 1-4-1965. Under this Act, Belgaum Municipal Borough was renamed as Belgaum City Municipality (hereinafter referred to as 'Belgaum Municipality'). Thereafter Angol area was included into the Belgaum Municipality. To this extent there is no controversy between the parties.

11. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that though Angol area has become part of Belgaum Municipality. Parts IV and V of the Act has not come into force in that area as no notification has been issued under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act. In support of this submission he relied on a Division Bench decision of the Court in Balawant Shamrao, Deshpande v. Sadashiv Haripant Kulkarni . The said decision fully supports his submission.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent contended as follows:

(1) The view taken in Balwant's case on the interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act and sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Municipalities Act is not correct, and that on a correct interpretation of these provisions, it should be held that Part V of the Act, came into force in Angol area on its inclusion within Belgaum Municipality in support of the submission that the interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act made in Balawant's case is not correct, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nandlal v. Motilal

13. Though the question referred for the opinion of the Full Bench covers village panchayats, and Local Boards also as the arguments before us were confined to the applicability of the Act to areas included in any municipality specified in II Schedule to the Act. I shall confine myself to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Municipalities Act.

14. I shall first consider as to whether by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Municipalities Act. Part V of the Act came into force in Angol area on its inclusion in Belgaum Municipality. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act provides that Parts IV and V of the Act shall be applicable to areas specified in II Schedule. Belgaum Municipality (Belgaum Municipal Borough) is included in II Schedule. Therefore, Parts IV and V applied to the area of Belgaum Municipality from 31-12-1961 on which date the Act came into force, sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Municipalities Act empowers the State Government to include in any municipality any local area adjacent thereto. Sub-section (2) requires that the - notification, issued under sub-section (1) should also define the limits of the local area, which is sought to be included into a municipality. It is common ground that this has been done and consequently Angol area has become part of Belgaum Municipality. Subsection (3) of Section 4 of the Municipalities Act reads:

'4. Power to include or exclude areas in or from Municipalities and the effect thereon,-

(1)& (2) *** ****

(3)When a local area is included in any municipality. this Ad and all notifications, rules, bye-laws, orders, resolutions, directions and powers (including any tax levied, issued made or conferred. under this Act or any other law applicable to such municipality shall. apply to the said area from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1).'

Sub-section (3) provides that on the inclusion of any local area, into a municipality, not only all the notifications, rules, bye-laws etc., issued -under that Act, but also any other law which was applicable to the area covered by such Municipality shall apply to the area so included from the date of publication of the notification under subsection (1). Therefore, it follows that Part V of the Act being one of the law which was applicable to Belgaum, Municipality, it came into force in Angol area with effect from the date it stood included in Belgaum Municipality.

15. The contention, however, urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows - Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Municipalities Act refers to laws which wore applicable to municipality' as such and not to any area which was part of that Municipality. Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 2 of the Act refers to areas and not to 'Municipality'. Therefore on the inclusion of an area into a Municipality, Part V of the Act does not Automatically come into force in such an area. In support of this interpretation, he relied on the Division. Bench decision of this Court in Balwant's case. . The view taken in the said decision, no doubt supports his, submission.

16. I find it difficult to accept the submission that the word 'Municipality' used in sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Municipalities Act does not refer to the territorial area which it covers. The word 'Municipality' is defined in Section 2(15) of the Municipalities Act. It reads thus:

'2. (15) 'Municipality, means any local area which may be constituted or declared as a city or a town municipality under Section 3 and includes the local area which is deemed to be a city or a town municipality under the provisions of this Act. If such municipality has not ceased to be a city or a town municipality; '

In view of this definition, the word 'municipality' used in sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Municipalities Act means the territorial area for which a municipality was constituted and includes the area, which is deemed to be a municipality under the Municipalities Act. Therefore for the purpose of the present case, Belgaum Municipality means territorial area for which Belgaum Municipality was constituted. Consequently when Anglo area was included into Belgaum. Municipal area by virtue of sub-s. (3) of S. 4 of the Municipalities Act, Part V of the Act being one of the law which was applicable to Belgaum. Municipal area, began to apply to Angol area also on its inclusion into the said municipality. Therefore, I am unable to agree that a notification under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act was necessary to bring Part V of the Act into force in Angol area.

17. In my opinion, the above conclusion can also be reached even without the aid. of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Municipalities Act even on the language of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nandlal's case, . In the said decision, the Supreme Court held that though the- notification was issued under Section 2 of the C. P. and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, applying the provisions of that Act to all the municipalities in the former State of C. P. and Berar on 26-7-1949 and consequently that Act was not applicable to Tiroda town, as it was not a municipality then, C. P. Act began to apply to Tiroda town with effect from 12-6-1956 on which date it was' constituted into a municipality.

The contention urged for the respondent therein that a fresh notification was necessary to bring that Act into force in Tiroda Municipality was repelled. Similarly, in the Present case, it may be seen that sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act, Provides that a notification may be issued applying all or any of the provisions of the Act to such other areas which means areas other than those included in II Schedule. Therefore, when Belgaum. Municipality finds a place in II Schedule and Angol area has become part of that municipality, provisions of Parts IV and V applied to that area from the date of inclusion of that area in Belgaum Municipality by the force of sub-section (3) itself and a notification under sub section (5) would be unnecessary. To put it differently, the use, of the words 'other areas' in sub-section (5) indicates that a notification under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act would become necessary, if the Government intends to apply the provisions of the Act to areas other than municipal areas specified in II Schedule. Therefore, in my opinion a notification under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Act would have become necessary, if only the Government wanted to apply the provisions of Part V of the Act to Anglo area even without including the said area within the area of Belgaum Municipality and in the present case such a notification was unnecessary as Angol area had become part of Belgaum Municipality.

18. In the light of the, above decision, with great - respect, I disagree with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Balawant's case . I accept the contention urged for the respondent.

19. In the result, my answer to the question referred for opinion is as follows:-

If any area has been newly added to any municipal area specified in II Schedule to the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, by virtue of a notification issued under the Provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, no separate notification under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act is necessary to make the provisions of Parts IV and V of the Karnataka Rent Control Act applicable to the newly added area.

20. Reference answered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //