Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1950 DIGILAW 39 (KER)

Gopalan v. Sippora

1950-06-26

GOVINDA PILLAI

body1950
Judgment :- The petition is by a tenant of the building No. 498 in the 12th Ward of the Ernakulam Municipality to quash the proceedings of the Government in a rent control case allowing his eviction. The 1st counter-petitioner is the owner of the building and she had filed R.C.P. 57 of 1124 before the Rent Controller of Ernakulam for evicting the petitioner. This was partly allowed and so the land lady and the tenant filed appeals before the District Magistrate, Trichur who was the appellate authority. By a joint order on these appeals the appellate authority ordered on 29.12.1950 that there were no grounds for ordering the eviction. On this the 1st counter-petitioner put in a revision petition on 24.1.1951 before the Government of Travancore-Cochin to revise the decision of the District Magistrate. By the proceedings dated 8.7.1951 the Government allowed the revision petition and thereby conferred on the land lady the right to evict the tenant. The land lady is now taking steps to get recovery of possession of the building. It was stated in this petition that the Government Order was wrong and invalid, as on the face of the records the conclusion arrived at was not possible. There was also no finding by any of the tribunals which tried the case that there had been acts of waste which were likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building in question. In the absence of such a finding neither the provisions of C1.9 of the Travancore-Cochin (Lease and Rent) Control Order of 1950 nor those of S.9 of the Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act XXIV of 1124 nor those of S.7 of the Proclamation IV of 1122 could be attracted to confer jurisdiction on the deciding authorities to order eviction. It was also contended that the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Order, 1950 was ultra wires and invalid, that in any event the said order would not govern the proceedings in this case, that the Government had therefore absolutely no authority to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate, that the tribunal constituted under C1.16 of the said order could not adjudicate the civil rights of the parties and that for these reasons also the Government's order was to be quashed. The petitioner then stated that he had invested a large amount in the trade which he was conducting there and that he was not to be evicted in any event. The first counter-petitioner is the land lady and the second counter-petitioner the State. No rejoinder to the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner had been made by or on behalf of the State so that it has to be taken that all the facts mentioned in the affidavit are admitted by the State. The 1st counter-petitioner has filed a counter affidavit. She stated that the petitioner began to use the building contrary to the purpose for which it was let out, that by his negligent conduct, the building once caught fire, that it caused material and permanent damage to the building, that though the Rent Controller ordered eviction the appellate authority reversed the same, that the Government in the revision proceedings had passed a proper order, that the Rent Control Order was not ultra vires, that the petitioner was only having a trade in which his investment could not exceed Rs. 2000/- and that he was not entitled to any relief. 2. Arguments on all the points raised by the petitioner were heard at length. But it appears to me that the petition can be allowed on a short ground. When the rent control petition was filed before the Rent Controller in 1124 the law in force was the one enacted by the Royal Proclamation IV of 1122, Cochin. This was repealed by Act XXIV of 1124 (Cochin). S.25 of Act XXIV of 1124 provided that all proceedings commenced and action taken under the Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Proclamation IV of 1122 and pending at the commencement of the Act shall, so far as may be deemed to have been commenced or taken under the corresponding provisions of the said Act and be continued subject to the provisions of that Act. So it was perfectly open to the Rent Controller to continue the proceedings started earlier than the Act XXIV of 1124. It was also competent for him to decide the said case based on the provisions in the Act XXIV of 1124. Cl. 4 of S.1 of the Act provided that the same would be in force till the last day of Karkadakom 1125. S.26 of the Act contains the saving clause. It was also competent for him to decide the said case based on the provisions in the Act XXIV of 1124. Cl. 4 of S.1 of the Act provided that the same would be in force till the last day of Karkadakom 1125. S.26 of the Act contains the saving clause. It states that the expiration of this Act shall not affect any investigation or legal proceedings in respect of any liability incurred under this Act or punishment and any such investigation or legal proceedings may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such punishment may be imposed as if this Act has not expired. It was therefore the intention of the Legislature to continue the proceedings started under this Act or under Proclamation IV of 1122 by applying the provisions mentioned therein. The Legislature may by subsequent enactments either repeal this provision or make other amendments. Act V of 1950 called the Public Safety Measures Act, was passed by the joint Legislature of the two integrated States. It is by virtue of this delegated power that Government passed the Travancore-Cochin Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Order 1950. S.13 of this Act gave the Government power to control rent for residential or non-residential accommodation. One of the main contentions was that the Government by themselves being incompetent to legislate for the people, the powers conferred under S.13 of Act V of 1950 were not to be taken to indicate that legislative powers were conferred on the executive Government, and that if legislative powers were really conferred by these provisions it was ultra vires. 3. Act V of 1950 was published on the 30th March, 1950 corresponding to Meenom 1125. At that time Act XXIV of 1124 (Cochin) was in force regulating the rent control proceedings. Schedule II of Act V of 1950 gives the list of enactments that are repealed. Act XXIV of 1124 (Cochin) is not mentioned in that schedule. It had either escaped the notice of the Legislature or they thought it unnecessary to include the same in the second schedule, as the said Statute will any way spend itself by the end of 1125. There was however the provision in S.26 of the Act V of 1950 which had been allowed to control the proceedings started under the Act. There was however the provision in S.26 of the Act V of 1950 which had been allowed to control the proceedings started under the Act. If it were the intention of the Legislature that this was no longer to control the proceedings then the operation of that section beyond 1125 would certainly have been controlled. "Where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation it is not to be held that such earlier and special legislation is either indirectly repealed, altered or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so. Moreover, although the effect of repealing a statute is to obliterate it as completely as if it had never been passed, this rule must be taken with the qualification that it does not deprive persons of vested rights acquired by them in actions duly determined under the repealed law". Vide page 7 of Maxwell on Interpretation of Statues, 9th Edition. 4. There are no words in Act V of 1950 to indicate that S.26 of Act XXIV of 1124 is repealed, but the indication is that the proceedings started under Act XXIV of 1124 are to be governed by the provisions of that Act. Thus the procedure that is to govern the rent control case in question is that prescribed in Act XXIV of 1124. S.15 and 16 of Act XXIV of 1124 provided an appeal from the decision of the Rent Controller before the appellate authority and the revision to the High Court from the order of the appellate authority. So after the decision of the District Magistrate who was the appellate authority the aggrieved party was to come before the High Court under S.16 of that Act. The revision filed before the Government was therefore incompetent and the Government had no jurisdiction to interfere in revision in this case. On this ground the proceedings of the Government allowing eviction have to be quashed. 5. The Government entertained the revision by virtue of the provisions in the Rent Control Order of V of 1950 for in all cases arising under that order the Government is duly constituted as the revisional authority. On this ground the proceedings of the Government allowing eviction have to be quashed. 5. The Government entertained the revision by virtue of the provisions in the Rent Control Order of V of 1950 for in all cases arising under that order the Government is duly constituted as the revisional authority. Since the rent control order of 1950 was not to govern the case in hand the Government acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the revision. There was an argument that even the rent control order of 1950 was ultra vires, for the Government had no power to constitute tribunals to try matters of this nature and that the Legislature alone could enact the necessary law to govern matters of this nature. In view of my finding on the first point referred to above I leave the matter open. The result is that the order passed by the Government in Order L. Dis. 769/51/P.W.C. dated 8th June 1951 is quashed. The petitioner will get his costs form the counter-petitioners. Advocate's fee will be Rs. 5 Allowed.