1. The question referred to us is
'Whether Section 2 (1) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1981 (Mysore Act No. XXII of 1981) in so far as it applies to Parts I and VII of the said Act to the Belgaum Cantonment area and Sub-sections (2) and
(3) of Section 2 of the said Act, which bring into force at once Parts II, III and Parts IV and V of the said Act in Belgaum Cantonment area, and Section 2 (5) which authorises the State Government to extend the provisions of Parts II to VI to any other area in the State of Mysore from such date as may be specified in the notification, in so far as it effected the Belgaum Cantonment area, is beyond the legislative competence of the Mysore State Legislature, for the reason that the subject-matter covered by the said Mysore Act is within the exclusive competence of the Union Parliament by virtue of Article 246 read with Entry 3, in List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India so far as Belgaum Cantonment area is concerned?'
2. This is a reference made under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Second Additional Munsiff, Belgaum. The question arose in the following circumstances: One Chamu Nemappa Gotadki, the applicant before the Second Additional Munsiff, claiming to be landlord of a premises described in his petition filed under Section 21 (1) (a) and (h) of the Mysore Bent Control Act, 1961 against the opponents therein, who, according to him, were monthly tenants, sought for eviction on the ground mat the opponents bad not paid rents and the premises was required reasonably and bona fide for the personal use and occupation. The opponents therein contended that the premises was in the Cantonment area of Belgaum and therefore the Mysore Legislature had no competence to make a law in respect of regulation of house accommodation (including the control of rents) in Cantonment area inasmuch as that subject-matter falls under Entry 3 In List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. In view of this objection, the learned Munsiff has referred the question as stated earlier for being answered by this court.
3. There appears to be no doubt that in respect of delimitation of Cantonment areas, local-self Government in such areas, the constitution and powers within such areas of Cantonment authorities and the regulation of house accommodation (including control of rent in such areas), the Parliament alone is competent to make law as this subject falls within Entry 3 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Entry vests in Parliament the exclusive power to regulate house accommodation in Cantonment areas without any qualifying words, irrespective of the fact that the tenants are either military officials or civilians. In Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundari Devi, : 1SCR443 , the Supreme Court has held:
'(i) When power is granted to Parliament to make Jaws for the regulation of house accommodation in cantonment areas there are no qualifying words to Indicatethat the house accommodation which is to be subject to such legislation must be accommodation that has already been acquired, requisitioned or allotted to the military. There is no reason to narrow down the scope of legislation on regulation of house accommodation and confine it to houses which are required and are actually in possession of military authorities or military officers. The power to regulate house accommodation by law must extend to all house accommodation in the cantonment area irrespective of its being owned by or in the possession of civilians. In fact, if a law were to be made for the first time under this entry, all the houses would be either vacant or occupied by owners or occupied by tenants of owners under private agreements and the law when first made, will nave to govern such houses.
(ii) The . scope of the expression 'regulation of house accommodation' in this entry cannot be confined. This entry gives the power to Parliament to pass legislation for the purpose of directing or controlling all house accommodation in cantonment areas. Clearly this power to direct or control will include within it all aspects as to who is to make the constructions, under what conditions the constructions can be altered, who is to occupy the accommodation and for how long, on what terms is it to be occupied, when and under what circumstances the occupant is to cease to occupy it and the manner in which the accommodation is to be utilised. All these are ingredients of regulation of house accommodation and there is no reason to hold that this word 'regulation' has not been used in this wide sense in this entry'.
4. Therefore it Is clear that when the Parliament is given the exclusive power to legislate in respect of house accommodation in cantonment area for regulating the accommodation in all its aspects, the State Legislature was not competent to make law in respect of cantonment area, in this case the Belgaum Cantonment. We therefore answer the question holding that Parts II, III, IV and V dealing with lease of buildings, fixation of fair rent, deposit of rent and control of eviction of tenants and obligations of landlords which are brought into force by Section 2 (1) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (Mysore Act 22 of 1961) in Belgaum Cantonment area, are beyond the legislative competence of the Mysore Legislature, and so Parts II to V of the Mysore Bent Control Act are inapplicable to Cantonment area of Belgaum. So far as the applicability of Part VI to this area is concerned, we do not express any opinion as the question does not arise. The reference Is answered accordingly.