VASU DEV SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-67
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
November 07,2006
Vasu Dev Singh
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SADHU SINGH VS. DISTRICT BOARD,GURDASPUR AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]BABURAO SHANTARAM MORE VS. BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD [REFERRED TO]
R M D CHAMARBAUGWALLA MIS SHARMA MAGAZINE A FIRM HIND SHABDA RACHANA HARIFAI SHRI CHAMAN LAL KHANNA BANNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S GURMEJ SINGH VS. S PRATAP SINGH KAIRON [REFERRED TO]
HAMDARD DAWAKHANA KALIPADA DEB LAKSHMAN SHRIPATI LTPURE ALIAS LAKSHMAN SHRI PATI IMPORE A B CHOUDHRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VASANLAL MAGANBHAI SANJANWALA THE PRATAP SPINNING WEAVING MANUFACTURING CO LIMITED VS. STATE OF BOMBAY NOW MAHARASHTRA :STATE OF BOMBAY NOW MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
P J IRANI VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. KANHAIYALAL [REFERRED TO]
FIRM AMAR NATH BASHESHAR DASS VS. TEK CHAND [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LACHMI NARAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB TIN SUPPLY CO CHANDIGARH LEKH RAJ VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT:CENTRAL GOVERNMENT [REFERRED TO]
MOTOR GENERAL TRADERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION ALPANA V MEHTA VS. PARITOSH BHUPESHKUMAR SHETH:MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS BOMBAY PRIVATE LIMITED BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED STATESMAN LIMITED KASTURI AND SONS LIMITED ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S KANDASWAMY CHETTIAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANTHER [REFERRED TO]
S M MAHENDRU AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN ARYA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAKARAN NAIR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU ANT [REFERRED TO]
DWARKADAS MARFATIA AND SONS VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
KESHO RAM AND CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS LIMITED BANK OF INDIA VS. S PARAMJITSINGH:BHARAT BHUSHAN [REFERRED TO]
ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED STRAW PRODUCTS LIMITED ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED STRAW PRODUCTS LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
B K INDUSTRIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN LEVER BATLIBOI AND CO VS. HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA:HINDUSTAN LEVER MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
THARUMAL VS. MASJID HAJUM PHAROSAN VA MADRASSA TALIMUL ISLAM MIRZA IZSMAIL ROAD JAIPUR [REFERRED TO]
NEDURIMILLI JANARDHANA REDDY VS. PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC STUDENTS UNION [REFERRED TO]
D C BHATIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PARRIPATI CHANDRASEKHARRAO AND SONS VS. ALAPATI JALAIAH [REFERRED TO]
KHODAY DISTILLERIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE VS. SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. K SABANAYAGAM [REFERRED TO]
C N RUDRAMURTHY VS. K BARKATHULLA KHAN [REFERRED TO]
DAI ICHI KARKARIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE REV DELHI ADMN VS. SIRI RAM [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ELPHANSTONE SPINNING AND WEAVING CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. CIPLA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ITW SIGNODE INDIA LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
JAMSHED HORMUSHJI WADIA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES PORT OF MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
CLARIANT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD [REFERRED TO]
M P HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BASANT NAHATA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH VS. SHANTIKUNJ INVESTMENT PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG CO LTD VS. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENT ACTION GROUP [REFERRED TO]
KERALA SAMSTHANA CHETHU THOZHILALI UNION VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
BUYWELL CORPORATION VS. MAHADEVMAL S O LATE MULCHAND [REFERRED TO]
HARKISHAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HARI PRASHAD GUPTA VS. JITENDER KUMAR KAUSHIK [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. PRINCIPAL ABHAY NANDAN INTER COLLEGE [LAWS(SC)-2021-9-93] [REFERRED TO]SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2011-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
DLF GOLF RESORTS LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-1-51] [REFERRED TO. WET -N -WILD RESORT V. STATE OF HARYANA,CWP NO. 443 OF 2005,D/D. 29.08.2008.]
ALOK YADAV VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-2-108] [REFERRED TO]
RAMPRASAD AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL VALUATION BOARD AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
B.R. MANHAS VS. STATE OF J AND K [LAWS(J&K)-2014-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
VADODARA SHAHERI JILLA KHEDUT MANDAL AND ORS VS. VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-205] [REFERRED TO]
CHITRA RANI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-132] [REFERRED TO]
JETHA RAM VS. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-4-332] [REFERRED TO]
KSANKUPAR TYNSONG VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
SUDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA PRAJAPATI VS. SECRETARY, (MPPSC) INDORE [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
K.CHELLAPANDIAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-465] [REFERRED TO]
SATINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-212] [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA VS. K MANJUNATH [LAWS(KAR)-2012-6-218] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
B. GOVINDRAJ HEGDE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
MEGHAN MAHTO VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
KASIRAJU SEETHARAMAIAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2019-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
JAYA SAHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
NIKITA VERMA VS. STATE OF M P AND ANR [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
GAURAV SHUKLA & OTHERS VS. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-62] [REFERRED TO]
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-352] [REFERRED]
GANESH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-296] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BALI VS. DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
KURMANCHAL INST OF DEGREE AND DIPLOMA VS. CHANCELLOR M J P ROHILKHAND UNIV [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
SUNAINA VERMA VS. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR [LAWS(P&H)-2007-11-167] [REFERRED]
URMLA MASIH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2018-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMPANIES VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
KIRTI KAPOOR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
CHANCHAL MODI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA VS. GAURAV VARSHNEY & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
BHAWNA CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-777] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2021-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
SHAM LAL KHERA VS. SUDERSHAN KUMAR RAO [LAWS(P&H)-2011-9-58] [REFERRED TO]
COL. PIRTHI PAL SINGH GILL VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-257] [REFERRED TO]
GAWRITEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. SQN LDR. GURDIAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH JITENDRAKUMAR SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-7-275] [REFERRED TO]
KEENARA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-2075] [REFERRED TO]
AMBAJI PHYSIOTHERAPY COLLEGE MANAGED BY AMBAJI EDUCATION VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-9-117] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI SUHAG VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-528] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDER BHUSAN ANAND VS. DEVINDER KUMAR SINGLA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
CARITAS INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
RUKSANA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-4-149] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA CHAWLA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-8-37] [REFERRED TO]
MOHIT MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2020-1-143] [REFERRED TO]
UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA KANNAUJIA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-2-102] [REFERRED TO]
A MANOHARAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2008-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. UNNI [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
SARBANANDA SONOWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHAN GROVER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2019-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
JCL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-252] [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN CHAND SHARMA AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2008-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF TOUR OPERATORS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
KETAN POTTERY WORKS AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-212] [REFERRED TO]
SHIREEN DADY ADENWALLA AND ORS. VS. YASMIN DINYAR ILAVIA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-224] [REFERRED TO]
K.UMADEVI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
A. DEEPALAKSHMI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-166] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN PATHAK VS. STATE OF M P & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-152] [REFERRED]
SHASHWAT VS. STATE OF M P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-142] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN BHILWARE VS. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
K.CHELLAPANDIAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-181] [REFERRED TO]
SAL STEEL LTD. AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2019-9-328] [REFERRED TO]
MAKS CASTING P LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2010-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
SIKKIM MANIPAL UNIVERSITY VS. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY [LAWS(SIK)-2015-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MOHAN KUSHWAHA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2021-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
NEPAL RAM PRAJAPATI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-7-71] [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKRISHNA KURUP VS. NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
MESSRS MAXIM TUBES COMPANY PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA : 2018 [LAWS(GJH)-2019-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
ARPIT KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
BHAWNA SINGH VS. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-475] [REFERRED TO]
AMITA BANTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
SEHAJDHARI SIKH FEDERATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2011-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP ALIAS SANDEEP MEHROTRA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-181] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. NAGPUR DISTILLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
SARAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Background facts:
Appellants are tenants in the premises situated within the Union Territory of Chandigarh. They were protected in terms of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the 1949 Act'). The Administrator of Chandigarh in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3 of the 1949 Act issued a notification dated 07.11.2002 whereby and whereunder it was directed that the provisions thereof would not apply to the buildings; monthly rent whereof exceeded Rs.1, 500/-. Aggrieved by issuance of the said notification, Appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, questioning the vires of Section 3 of the 1949 Act as also the validity of the said notification dated 07.11.2002 on diverse grounds. The said petitions have been dismissed. These appeals arise for the said judgments and orders. Before adverting to the questions involved in these appeals, we may notice the legislative history of the legislations in question.
(3.)Rent Act :
Union Territory of Chandigarh was a part of the State of Punjab prior to coming into force of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966. The Central Government in exercise of its power conferred under Section 87 thereof issued a notification for extending the provisions of 'the Act' to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The 1949 Act is a pre-constitution Act.
The 1949 Act was enacted to restrict the increase of rent of certain premises situated within the limits of urban areas and the eviction of tenants therefrom. We may hereinafter notice a few provisions of the said Act.
"Building" has been defined in Section 2(a) to mean "any building or part of a building let for any purpose whether being actually used for that purpose or not, including any land, go-downs, out-houses, or furniture let therewith, but does not include a room in a hotel, hostel or boarding-house;"
"Urban Area" has been defined in section 2(j) to include an area comprised in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Section 3 of the 1949 Act provides for exemptions from the operation of the said Act, which is in the following terms :
"Exemptions. : The Central 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."
Sections 4 and 5 of the 1949 Act provide for prevention of unfair rent and increase in fair rent in the cases admissible as prescribed thereunder.
Section 8 of the 1949 Act provides for recovery of the rent which should have been paid. Section 9 provides for increase of rent on account of payment of rates of local authority but prohibits increase thereof on account of payment of other taxes. Section 10 provides that the landlord without just or sufficient cause cannot interfere with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. Section 13 protects the tenants from eviction, envisaging that unless one or more ground specified therein is satisfied, no tenant shall be evicted from the tenanted premises save and except in execution of a decree passed by the Rent Controller. Section 13A provides for right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to certain persons.
(2.)Background facts:
Appellants are tenants in the premises situated within the Union Territory of Chandigarh. They were protected in terms of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the 1949 Act'). The Administrator of Chandigarh in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3 of the 1949 Act issued a notification dated 07.11.2002 whereby and whereunder it was directed that the provisions thereof would not apply to the buildings; monthly rent whereof exceeded Rs.1, 500/-. Aggrieved by issuance of the said notification, Appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, questioning the vires of Section 3 of the 1949 Act as also the validity of the said notification dated 07.11.2002 on diverse grounds. The said petitions have been dismissed. These appeals arise for the said judgments and orders. Before adverting to the questions involved in these appeals, we may notice the legislative history of the legislations in question.
(3.)Rent Act :
Union Territory of Chandigarh was a part of the State of Punjab prior to coming into force of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966. The Central Government in exercise of its power conferred under Section 87 thereof issued a notification for extending the provisions of 'the Act' to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The 1949 Act is a pre-constitution Act.
The 1949 Act was enacted to restrict the increase of rent of certain premises situated within the limits of urban areas and the eviction of tenants therefrom. We may hereinafter notice a few provisions of the said Act.
"Building" has been defined in Section 2(a) to mean "any building or part of a building let for any purpose whether being actually used for that purpose or not, including any land, go-downs, out-houses, or furniture let therewith, but does not include a room in a hotel, hostel or boarding-house;"
"Urban Area" has been defined in section 2(j) to include an area comprised in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Section 3 of the 1949 Act provides for exemptions from the operation of the said Act, which is in the following terms :
"Exemptions. : The Central 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."
Sections 4 and 5 of the 1949 Act provide for prevention of unfair rent and increase in fair rent in the cases admissible as prescribed thereunder.
Section 8 of the 1949 Act provides for recovery of the rent which should have been paid. Section 9 provides for increase of rent on account of payment of rates of local authority but prohibits increase thereof on account of payment of other taxes. Section 10 provides that the landlord without just or sufficient cause cannot interfere with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. Section 13 protects the tenants from eviction, envisaging that unless one or more ground specified therein is satisfied, no tenant shall be evicted from the tenanted premises save and except in execution of a decree passed by the Rent Controller. Section 13A provides for right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to certain persons.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.