Sinha, J. - (1.) The main question for determination in this appeal from the concurrent decisions of the Courts below is whether the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 38 of 1952 (which, hereinafter will be referred to as the, Control Act) is applicable to the promises in question. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that in view of the Provisions of S. 3 (a) of the Control Act the market called the new Fruit and Vegetable Market, Subzimandi, under the administration of the respondent, the Delhi Improvement Trust, (which hereinafter will be referred to as the Trust) is Government property to which the provisions of the Act are not attracted. This appeal has been brought to his Court on a certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature of the State of Punjab that the case involved a substantial question of law as to the legal status of the respondent vis-a-vis the Government.
(2.) The sequence of events leading up to the institution of the suit by the appellant "the Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union, Subzimandi" a registered body under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, 16 of 1926 giving rise to this appeal may shortly be stated as follows:
(3.) By an agreement dated March 31, 1937 (Exhibit D-5) between the Secretary of State for India in Council and the Delhi Improvement Trust, which will have to be set out in detail hereinafter and the construction of which is the main point in controversy between the parties, a certain area of the land admittedly belonging to Government was placed at the disposal of the Trust for the "orderly expansion of Delhi under the Supervision of a single authority". The said property was compendiously called "the Nazul Estate". By a letter dated May 1/2, 1939 (not exhibited but filed in the High Court at the appellate stage) the Chairman of the Trust forwarded a copy of the resolution No. 551 dated April 24, 1939 (Exhibit D-15) to Chief Commissioner of Delhi. The resolution acts out the scheme for the construction of the new Subzimandi Fruit Market on a gross area of 10.87 acres including certain lands which till then did not vest in the Trust. The Chairman asked for administrative sanction of the Government of India to place the additional area at the disposal of the trust on the same terms as those applicable to the Nazul Estate aforesaid held under the agreement, Ex. D-5. The resolution aforesaid sets out the object and history of the scheme. It contains the categorical statement that "Government is the owner of all the land included in the scheme. The position according to the revenue records is giver in the statement on the next page". The scheme then sets out in great detail the several structures to be constructed and the profit and loss figures. Under the headings "Computation of revenue surplus" occur the following significant statements very much relied upon by the appellant: "The revenue surplus of Rs. 4,530 is made up as follows; and is based on the recommendation that 'the Trust shall own and maintain the market." Under the heading "Future Jurisdiction" the following significant passage occurs: "At this stage, if the suggestion is accepted that 'the Trust should own and run the market' at least until it is firmly established, and in view of fact that Government are the sole owners of the land, no difficulty is anticipated due to divided territorial jurisdiction of the two local authorities and no change is proposed." The letter enclosing the resolution of the Trust as aforesaid contains a summary of the scheme, a portion of which is as follows: "An estimated capital expenditure of Rs. 4.73 lakhs is involved. On this capital expenditure there will be a capital deficit of Rs. 4.20 lakhs and a recurring revenue surplus of Rs. 4,530. This financial result 'assumes ownership and management of the market by the Trust', and takes into account all charges on maintenance and day-to-day management which would otherwise fall to a local body. The scheme involves no acquisition of land, but assumes 'transfer free of charge of an area of 10.87 acres of Government land', all of which except for 1,510 square yards, falls within the limits of the Civil Lines Notified Area Committee". (Under-lined (here into '') by us).;