Smt. Ruchira Vinayak and Others vs IInd Addl. District Judge and Others

S.R. Singh, J.—This is a tenant''s petition arising out of suit for eviction recovery of arrears of rent and damages in respect of a part of the residential building No. 116 F Chappel Street, Meerut Cantt., Meerut which has been in the tenancy of the Petitioner. The accommodation in dispute consists of two rooms along with a bathroom, kitchen and latrine with appurtenant open space. The said accommodation was let out to the Petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 150. The rest of the building was in occupation of the Respondent-landlords. The suit instituted by the landlord after determination of tenancy, was resisted by the Petitioners inter alia or the grounds that the building was governed by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) and hence the suit for eviction was barred by Section 20 of the said Act in that it was not covered by any of the reception clauses mentioned in Sub-section (2) thereof, Learned Judge Small Causes Court repelled the Petitioners'' contention that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1971 was applicable to the building in question and in view of its finding, the suit culminated in a decree vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.90. The revision preferred u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, having been dismissed by the IInd Addl. District Judge, Meerut, vide judgment and order dated 24.4.95, the Petitioners have preferred the instant petition for the relief of quashing the orders aforestated.

The only question propounded herein is that the courts below have erred in holding that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not intended for application to the building in question. It brooks no dispute that the building in question falls outside the periphery of Bazar Area notified u/s 43A of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and is admittedly situated in the Bungalow Area of Meerut Cantt. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, by means of a notification dated 11.3.1950, a copy of which has been annexed to the counter-affidavit as Annexure C. A. 1, issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, has declared that the provisions of the said Act, would be operative within the boundaries of the Meerut. Cantonment excepting Bazar Area notified u/s 43A of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and by means of S.R.O. 259 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, as in force on the date of notification in the State of U.P. have been extended to all Cantonments in the State of U.P. in the notification enacted in S.R.O. 259 as shown in the Appendix II of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 by Eastern Book Company in 1986 Edition. Admittedly, the S.R.O. 259 has been superseded by means of a subsequent S.R.O. 47, dated 17.2.1982, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. In S.R.O. 259 as also S.R.O. 47 dated 17.2.1982, it is provided that any building within the cantonment which is or may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease under Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923, shall be exempted from the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The question which emerges for consideration by the Court is that whether the building in question is or may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. The definition of the term ''House'' as given in Section 2(f) of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923, means a house available for occupation by a Military Officer or Military Mess and includes the land and building appurtenant to the house, Section 5 of the said Act provides that every house situate in a cantonment or part of a cantonment in respect of which a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 is, for the time being, in force, shall be liable to appropriation by the Central Government on a lease in the manner and subject to the conditions provided in the Act. As noticed above, the house in question is no doubt situated in Meerat Cantt. in respect of which notification (Annexure C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit) has been issued. The bottom-line question is whether the house is or may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 as visualised by Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Law) Act, 1957. According to proviso to Section 3(1) of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, nothing contained in any enactments relating to Rent Control Act and Regulations of House Accommodation, which have been extended by the Central Government to Cantonment Areas by virtue of powers u/s 3 would apply to (a) any premises within the cantonment belonging to the Government; (b) any tenancy or other like relationships created by the grant from the Government in respects of Premises within the cantonment taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government or; (c) any house within the cantonment which is or which may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923.

I find kernel in the submissions made by Sri Pankaj Mittal, counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not excluded merely because the house falls within the Bungalow Area Meerut Cantt. What is essential for excluding applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is that it may be found as a fact that the house is or may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. A perusal of the congeries of the provisions of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 would indicate that every house situated in a cantonment or part of a cantonment in respect of which notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 is, for the time being in force, shall be liable for appropriation by the Central Government on a lease in the manner but subject to the conditions provided under the Act. The nuances in import and connotation of the expression "liable to appropriation" as used in Section 5 of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 and the expression which is or may be appropriated" as used in Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, are quite palpable. The liability to appropriation within the meaning of Section 5 of the 1923 Act is to be viewed and judged subject to the provisions of Section 6 and Section 10 of the said Act and if the house is not such as may be appropriated within the meaning of Section 10 of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923, then in that event, it would not be a house, notwithstanding its liability to appropriation which may be covered by the exception embodied in Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957.

As stated supra, the trial court has not adverted itself to this aspect of the matter and the Revisional Court has declined to delve into the question for the reasons that this question can be traversed upon only by the appropriate authority, competent to appropriate the house under the Acts aforestated. In my opinion, the question whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the building is a question germane to the Jurisdiction of the court to entertain a suit in view of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and therefore, when the question as to applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of the 1972 is raised in a suit, it becomes a duty of the court to advert itself to the question whether or not the house is one which may be excluded from the purview of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by virtue of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 3 of the Act. There is no difficulty in case of a house which is appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. The question may arise only in a case of a house which may be appropriated by the Central Government and for determining this question, the authorities have to address themselves to the factors indicated in Section 6 and Section 10 of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. For example, if the house is occupied by the owner, then it is not to be appropriated as provided in Clause (e) of Section 10 of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. In view of the pleading that a part of the house is held/occupied by the landlords, it becomes necessary to determine whether such a house may be appropriated by the Central Government within the meaning of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957. In my opinion, therefore, the matter has to be remitted to the revisional court for decision afresh after proper self direction to the relevant factors set out above.

Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The revisional order dated 24.4.95 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Revisional Court which will restore the case to its original number and dispose if to in the light of the directions embodied in the judgment, within a period not exceeding four months.