Skip to content


Jagjit Singh Kang and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petn. No. 1914 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1986P& H78
ActsEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 3
AppellantJagjit Singh Kang and ors.
RespondentState of Punjab and anr.
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........dated february 9, 1984 (annexure p. 4) exempting the building and rented lands situated in the urban area administered by the national area committee, s. a. a. nagar. this notification read as follows:--'no s. u. 10/pa. 3/1949/s. 3/84:-- in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 (east punjab act no. 3 of 1949), and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the president of india is pleased to direct that the provisions of the aforesaid act shall not apply to the buildings and rented lands situated in the urban area administered by the notified area committee, sahibzada ajit singh nagar (mohali), for the period commencing from 28th december, 1983, and expiring on the 31st march 1995. swaran singh boparai,secretary to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioners who claims to be in occupation of certain shops as tenants in Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (for short S. A. S. Nagar). commonly known as Mohali and a satellite town of Chandigarh and also office bearers of an association, known as 'Tenants Welfare Association,' impugn the notification of the Punjab State Government, dated February 9, 1984 (Annexure P. 4) exempting the building and rented lands situated in the urban area administered by the National Area Committee, S. A. A. Nagar. This notification read as follows:--

'No S. U. 10/PA. 3/1949/S. 3/84:--

In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. 3 of 1949), and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the president of India is pleased to direct that the provisions of the aforesaid Act shall not apply to the buildings and rented lands situated in the urban area administered by the Notified Area Committee, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali), for the period commencing from 28th December, 1983, and expiring on the 31st March 1995.

Swaran Singh Boparai,

Secretary to Government, Punjab,

Department of Local Government,

Housing and Urban Development.'

The primary challenge is that under section 3 referred to above, the Government cannot exempt all the building or class of building or rented lands. The Government is also accused of arbitrariness on the ground that no such exemption is available to the buildings constructed in the adjoining town, i.e. Chandigarh. The object sought to be achieved by the Government with the issuance of this notification is stated in the following words:--

'1. That S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali) is a budding industrial town which needs all sorts of encouragement for its proper growth and all-round development. In this context, it was ab initio decided not to apply the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 to S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali). However due to certain financial and other contingencies it was deemed appropriate to constitute a Notified Area Committee in the said town. Consequently, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'The Act') become ipso facto applicable despite the fact that it had never been and is not the intention of the Government of Punjab to extend the provisions of the Act to the Urban areas of S. A. S. Nagar. In order to meet this predicament. the Government had no choice except to exempt the town from the purview of the Act, so that the construction and development activities in the said town can be given a fillip and boost.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is the settled position that the Courts, are normally not concerned with the policy of the Legislature or with the result of giving effect to the language of a statute. Equally settled is the proposition that the manner and intendment of the Legislature which is always presumed to be valid has to be effectuated and not negatived by process of interpretation by Courts. The argument that with the specification of the area within which the buildings or rented lands exempted or sought to be exempted or sought to be exempted are situated the present notification goes outside the ambit of section 3 of the Act, does not appeal to us at all. this section reads as follows:--

'The State Government may direct that all or any of the provisions of this Act shall not apply to any particular building or rented land or any class of buildings or rented lands;'

The building or rented lands located within the notified area of S. A. S. Nagar apparently form a class by themselves as compared to buildings and rented lands located in all other urban areas to which the Art is applicable. Similarly the argument that the exemption of the buildings and the rented lands situated in this urban area from the provisions of the Act when no such exemption exists in the case of the buildings and rented lands located in the adjoining town of Chandigarh, per se amounts to arbitrariness on the part of the Government, deserves to be rejected outright. The Punjab Government obviously has no jurisdiction over the areas forming part of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and thus the action or non-action of the Union Territory authorities cannot possibly render any of its action as arbitrary.

3. Thus we dismiss this petitioners in limine with no order as to costs.

4. Petition Dismissed.


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