Holding

The sub‑letting in 1967 does not fall within Section 13(2)(ii)(a) because the Act was not in force then, and despite the retrospective effect of the 1974 notification, the landlord cannot invoke the eviction provision.

Summary

The landlord sought eviction of a shop in Ambala Cantonment on the ground that the tenant, Gurcharan Singh, had sub-let the premises without his written consent, invoking Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller and appellate authority held that sub‑letting had occurred in 1967 and ordered eviction, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the Act was applicable to the cantonment at the time of the alleged sub‑letting and whether the 1974 notification extending the Act retrospectively was valid. It held that the Act became operative in the cantonment only on 21 November 1969, and that the phrase "has sub‑let" in the provision applies only to sub‑letting transactions made after the Act’s commencement; therefore the 1967 sub‑letting fell outside its scope. Although the 1974 notification was valid under the amended power conferred by the 1972 amendment to the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, the landlord could not rely on the eviction provision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 to a sub‑letting that occurred in 1967 in Ambala Cantonment.
The validity of the 1974 notification extending the Act to the cantonment, given the earlier 1969 notification and the 1972 amendment to the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957.
Whether the power under Section 3 of the 1957 Act was exhausted after the 1969 extension and could be exercised again in 1974.
The landlord's entitlement to evict based on a sub‑letting that pre‑dated the Act’s commencement.

Legislation cited

Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957s. 3, s. 3(2)
Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (Amended 1972)s. 1(2), s. 3(2)
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949s. 13(2)(ii)(a)

Subjects

rent controlsub‑lettingevictioncantonment jurisdictionretrospective legislationstatutory extension of rent control lawsinterpretation of statutory provisions

Judgment

490

A

GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS .
.v.
V. K. KAUSHAL
B August 21, 1980
[A. C. GUPTA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.]

Rent legislatio11-East Pu11jab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949-Section
13(2) (ii} (a)-Scope oif'-Rent' Act ext'ended tq cantonments by virtue· ·of power
Conferred u11der Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957-
c By an amendment of the 1957 Act power conferred on Central Governmerit
to extend the Act both retrospectiv"ely and prospectively-Validity of.
Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act,
1957 empowers the. Central Government to1 extend by notification to any
cantonment any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of
house accommodation which was in force on the date of notification in the
State in which the cantonment was situated. · In exercise of this power the
D Central Government by a notification dated November 21, 1969 extended the
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 to the cantonments in the
States of Haryana and Punjab. By virtue of section 3(2) which was added
in the 1957 Act in 1972, the Central Government enjoyed power to extend
an enactment from a date earlier than the date of notification or from a
future date. In January, 1974 the Central 'Government issued a notification
superseding the earlier notification dated November 21, 1969 and extended
E afresh the 1949 Act to cantonments in Haryana and Punjab.
Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the 1949 Act provides for an order of eviction
if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has, after the commencement of
. this Act without the written consent of the landlord has s.ublet the entire
building or a portion thereof.
The respondent-landlord in the instant case applied for possession of his
F
premises in Ambala Cantonment under the oe{:upation of the appellant-tenant
on' the ground that without his written consent the tenant had sub-let the shop.
The appellant claimed that it was the joint Hindu family of which he was a
member that was the tenant and therefore there was no question of the
" premises being sub-let by him to· the joint family.
The Rent Controller ordered eviction. His order was affirmed by the
G appellate authority. 'The High Court dismissed the .tenant's revision
application.
Before this Court it was contended that (1) there was no evidence that
the shop was sub-let; (2) since the 1949 Act was not in force in the Ambala
Cantonment in 1967 wheri• the sub-letting was alleged to have taken place,
the landlord could not avail of the provisions of that Act and (~) the
H notification issued in 1974 was without statutory sanction and was invalid
because once the Central Government had exercised the power in 1969 that
power stood e'xhausted and the Government could not invoke it again in
1974.
GURCHARAN SINGH v. V. K. KAUSHAL 491

Dismissing the appeal, A
HELD : 1. The finding of the High Court and the Rent Controller that
1he tenant had sub-let tlie shop is unassailable. The shop, to. begin with,
was let out to the appellant alone and not to the joint Hindu family. The
business carried on by him was later taken over by .a partnership consisting
of the father and brothers and he was no . longer the proprietor of the
business. (493 G & BJ
B
2(a) The 1949 Act became law operating in the Ambala Cantonment with
effect from November 21. 1969 when the Central Government extended that
Act to the cantonments i~ Haryana and Punjab. The sub-Jetting having taken
place in 1967 when the 1949 Act was not in force the landlord codd not
avail of the provisions of that Act. [494 B-D]
(b) In the context of section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the 1949 Act the words
«has sub-Jet" imply that the sub-Jetting must subsist on the date when th!!
c
Act came intO force. The words "has sub-let", if they are unqualified by
any reference to the commencement of the Act, refer to a transaction of
sub-Jetting entered into before or after commencement of the Act and in
a case where sub-letting has been effected before the commencement of the Act
the sub-lease must subsist, and the rights under ·it continue to flow, on the
date of the commencement of the Act. In the present case, section 13(2)(ii)(a)
confines its scope to sub-leases effected after the commencement of the Act, that D
is to say, transactions of sub-letting effected after the date when the Act
came into force. For that reason, a sub-Jetting effected before the
commencement of the Act cannot be brought within the mischief of the
section even though it continues to subsist on or after the commencement
of the Act. [494 H; 495 A-BJ
Goppulal v. Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji & Anr. [1969] 3 S.C.R. E
989 held inapplicable.
'
3(a) By virtue of the amendments made to the 1957 Act in 1972 the

t
1949 Act will be deemed to have come into force in ihe Ambala cantonment
on January 26, 1950! Therefore, the sub-letting effected in 1967 must
plainly be ·regarded as having been made after the commencement 0f that
Act. [496 D-E]
F
(b) In issuing the notification dated January 24, 1974 and therehy
extending the 19491 Act to the Ambala Cantonment restrospectively with
effect from January 26, 1950 the Central Government exercised a power not
available to it when it issued the earlier notification of November 21, 1969.
The contention that the notification of January, 1974 amounted to a further
exercise of the same power conferred by section 3 of the 1957 Act is without
force. [497 D-EJ, G
The power under which the notification of January, 1974 had been
issued is a separate and distinct power from that undeT which the earlier
notification was made. The power now exercised passed into the 1957 Act
when it was amended in 1972. In its nature and quality it is not identifiable
with the power vested under the unamended Act. A power conferred by
, statute is distinguished by the character and content of its essential components.
H
If one or more material components characterising the power cannot be
identified with the material components· of another, they are two different and
distinct powers. The power under the unamended Act was a limited power
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ll9lffl 1 S.C.R.

A which could operate prospectively only while the power after· amendment was.
retrospective. It was a power whose reach and cover extended far beyond
what the power under the unamended Act 'could achieve. [497 A-C]
(c) The words "this Act" occurring in "the commencement of this Act"
in clause (c) of the proviso to section 3(2) of the 1957 Act refer to the
principal Act in which sub-section (2) was inserted in section 3 and not to
B the Amendment Act of 1972. By virtue of section 2(2) as amended it is
the principal Act which must be deemed to have come into force on January
26, 1950. [497 G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 840 of 1978.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
c 14th December 1977 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil
Revision No. 613/74.
Govind Das, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor and Mrs. Shobha Dixit for
the Appellant.
M. N. Phadke, N. C. Jain, S. K. Dhingra and S. L. Sethia for
D the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a
. judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing a
tenants' revision petition under s. 15(5), East Punjab Urban Rent
E Restriction Act, 1949 arising out of eviction proceedings.

The respondent, as landlord, applied under s. 13(2) (ii) (a) of the

··~
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949 for the possession of
a shop forming part of the premises No. 6283, Nicholson Road.
Ambala Cantonment occupied by the appellants. He claimed that
F the shop· had been let out to the first appellant, Gurcharan Singh.
but that he had without the written consent of the respondent, sub-
let the shop to his father, Gurdayal Singh and his brothers, Anoop
Singh and Jagjit Singh. The appellants denied that the shop had
been sub-let and pleaded that they, along with their father constituted
a joint Hindu family, and that the joint Hindu family was the tenant
G
of the shop. The Rent Controller found in favour of the respondent
and passed an order of eviction, which was subsequently affirmed
by the Appellate Authority. The appellants applied in revision, and
the High Court has, by its judgment and order dated 14th December,
1977 dismissed the revision application.
H The first contention of tile appellant is that there is no evidence
that the shop was sub-let, and tile finding isr misconceived in' point
of law.
GURCHARAN SINGH v. v. K. KAUSHAL (Pathak, J.) 49 3

It is sufficient to point out that the Rent Control Authorities A
and the High Court have concurrently found that the shop was let
out to Gurcharan Singh and not to the joint Hindu family, and that
Gurcharan Singh sub-let it in 1967 to a partnership firm consisting
of his father and brother. The finding is supported by ample evidence
on the record. The material shows that the shop was let out to
Gurcharan Singh alone, and the business carried on by him was later B
taken over by a partnership consisting of his father and brothers. He
was no longer proprietor of the business, and merely extended his
assistance under a power of attOC11ey enabling him to act for the
partnership. The execution of the power of attorney establishes that
he was not a partner. It appears that Gurcharan Singh individually
carried on some other business, but there is no evidence to show c
that that business was lodged! in the shop under consideration. The
material before us demonstrates that the shop was occupied exclusively
by the partnership firm and that Gurcharan Singh was left with no
right to possession therein. The evidence is incompatible with the
case, now set up before us, that the partnership was merely a licensee
D
.of Gurcharan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants relies on
Hira Singh & Ors. v. Banarsi Dass(1). That case. however, was one
of a joint tenancy, and it was held that the mere circumstance that
one of the co-tenants had ceased living in the premises for some
time could not lead to the inference that he hail sub-let it to the other
qq-tenants. The evidence showedj that all the co-tenants were E
carrying on business in partnership, although one of them was not
disclosed as a partner.
Some reliance was placed on the circumstance that the licence
for carrying on the business stood in the name of Gurcharan Singh.
As the evidence plainly shows, the licence was issued to him when he
was carrying on the business, and subsequently, although it continued F
to stand in his name. it was used by the partnership firm, and no
inquiry was ever made by the licensing authority, when renewing it,
to determine whether the original holder of the licence was still
carrying on the business.
We ace of opinion that the finding of the High Court and the G
Rent Control authorities that Gurchal:an Singh had sub-let the shop
is unassailable.
Learned counsel for the appellants contends next that the grottnd
of sub-letting taken under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act, 1949 is not available to the respondent because on the date when
the sub-letting took plll9C that Act was not in force in the Ambala H
Cantonment. Now, it appears thats. 3 of the Cantonments (Extension
(1) (1979) 1 Rent Control Journal 145.
11--647 S.C. Inlia/80
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198ll 1 S.C.R.

A of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 empowered the Central Government
to extend, by notification, to any cantonment with such restrictions
and modifications as it thought fit, any enactment relating to the
control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which was
in force on the date of the notification in the State in which the
B cantonment was situated. In exercise of that power, the Central
Government issued Notification No. SRO·7, dated 21st November,
1969 extending the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
to cant~nments in the States of Haryana & Punjab. Consequently,
with effect from 21st November, 1969 the East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act became a law operating in the cantonment. Section 13
(2) (ii) (a) of the Act provides for an order of eviction if the Controller
is satisfied "that the tenant has, after commencement of this Act,
c without the written consent of the landlord-
(a) transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire
building or rented land or any portion thereof."
It is clear that the tenanf falls within th.e mischief of this sub-clause
D only if he has effected the transfer or sub·letting after the
commencement of the Act. The Act commenced to operate in the
:Ambala Cantonmeint on 21st November. 1969. In regard to that
territory, it was not law beforn that date, but only on and from that
date. It is clear that the sub-letting in the present case having been
effected in 1967, was not made after the c.ommencement of the Act.
E Learned colinsel for the respondent urges that s. 13(2)(ii)(a) of the ~·
Act uses the words "has sub-let", and submits that sub-letting is a
continuous process and that even though in the .pTesent case it may ~
be said to have commenced before the Act came into force_ it
continued in operation after the Act was brought into force. Now, ,
when s. 13(2)(ii)(a) speaks of a tenant who "has sub-let", it refers
F to a tenant who has entered into a transaction of sub-letting. And
the transaction of sub-letting is referable. to a single point of time.
It is the moment when the act effecting the sub-letting is completed.
That transaction is located at a fixed point. What happens then is
that a flowing stream of rights and obligations issues from the sub-
letting. Those rights continue as long as the sub-lease subsists, but
G they have their source in the definitive transaction of sub-letting located ~
in a single fixed point of time. We may add that in the context
of s. 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act, the words "has sub-kt" imply that the
sub-letting must subsist on the date when the Act comes into force.
The reason is apparent from the object of the Act, which is to protect
the pe;rsonal occupation of the tenant. The protection is not extended
H to a tenant who bas abandoned occupation of the premises and has
passed possession to another, even though by wa"! of a sub-tenancy.
GURCHARAN SINGH v. v. K. KAUSHAL (Pathak, ].) 495

The · protection against eviction is not available for permitting a A
tenant to make a profit out of his tenancy rights by sub-letting the
premises. Therefore, the words "has sub-let" tinqualified by any
reference to the commencement of the Act, irefer to a transaction of
sub-letting entered! into befoire or after the commencement of the
Act, and in the case where sub-letting has been effected before the
commencement of the Act the sub-lease must subsist, and the rights B
under it continue to flow, on the date of the commencement of the
Act. In the present case, however, s. 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act confines
its scope to sub-leases effected afte,._ the commencement of the Act,
that is to say, transactions of sub-letting effected after the date when
the Act crune into force. For that reason, a sub-letting effected
before the commencement of the Act cannot be brought within the c
mischief of s. 13(2)(ii){a) even though it continues tor subsist on or
after the commencement of the Act. In Goppulat v. Thakurji Shriji
Shriji Dwarkadheeshji & A:nr.( 1) on which learned counsel for the
respondent relies, the relevant provision did not include the words
"after the commencement of this Act", and, therefore, took within its
D
scope a sub-letting transacted before the coming into force of the
relevant Act.
In our opinion, the respondent cannot avail of s. 13(2)(ii)(a) of
the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on the basis that it was
brought into operation in the Ambala Cantonment by the Notification
of 1869. E
We find, however, that the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control
Laws) Act, 1957 was amended by Act No. XXII of 1972. Upon
amendment, s. 1(2) of the principal Act declared that the principal
Act would be deemed to have come into force on 26th January, 1950.
The words "on the date of the Notification" were omitted in s. 3(1) F
-Of the principal Act, and were deemed always to have been omitted,
1lO that under s. 3 the Central Government must be deemed to have
been empowered always to extend to a cantonment any enactment
relating to the control of rent and regulation. of house accommodation
in force in the State even as it stood befo['e the date of the Notification.
This amendment was made in order to accord with the further G
.amendment made by inserting sub-section (3) in s. 3 of the principal
Act, which provided that where an enactment in force in any State
relating to the control of :rent and regulation of house accommodation
was extended to a cantonment from a date earlier than .the date of
such extension was made, such enactment, as in force on such earlier
date, would apply to such cantonment. Section 3(2) was added in H
the principal Act, and it provided :
(1) [1969] 3 S.C.R. 989.
496 SUPREMll COURT REPORTS rl98ll 1 S.C.R.

A "2. The extension of any enactment under sub-s. (1) may be made
from such earlier or future date as the Central Government
may think fit :
Provided that no suc,h extension shall be · made from a date:
earlier than-
B (a) ~ commencement of sucih enactment, or
\ (b) the establishment of the cantonment, or

c
(c) the commenoyment of this Act, whichever is later."
Subject to the proviso. the Central Government now enjoyed
power to extend an enactment from a date earlier than the date of
the notification or from a future date. Subsequently, the Central
Government issued Notification No. SR0-55, dated 24th January,
-A
1974 superseding the earlier Notification No. SR0-7, dated 21st
November, 1969 and extending the East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act afresh to cantonments in the States of Haryana and
Punjab. Section 1(3) of that Act was modified to read that, except
D. for s. 19, it would be deemed to have come into force on 26th
January, 1950. .The result is that the East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act will be deemed to have come into force in the Ambala
Cantonment on 26th January, 1950. And if that be so, the sub-letting
effected in 1967 must plainly be regarded as having been made after
the commencement of that Act.
E Two points are raised on behalf of the appellants against that
conclusion. The first is that the power under s. 3 of the Cantonments
(Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 having been exercised
once, that is to say, by the Notification dated 21st November, 1969,
the power of extension stood exhausted and could not be availed of
again, and therefore the Notification dated 24th January, 1974 was
F
without statutory sanction and invalid. We are referred to Lachmi
N<iain etc., etc. v. Union of India & Ors.(1). That was a case where
this Court held that a Notification under s. 2 Part C States (Laws)
Act, 1950 having been issued in 1951 by the Central Government
extending the Bengal Finance (Sales-Tax) Act, 1941 to the State of
G Delhi, the power giv~n by s. 2 exhausted itself on the extension of
the enactment and could not be exercis.ed again to enable the issue
of a fresh Notific-.ation modifying the terms in which the Bengal Act
was extended. The case is clearly distinguishable. The power under
which the Notification dated 24th January, 1974 has been issued is
a separate and distinct power from that under which the Notification
H dated 21st November, W69 was made. The power now exercised
passed into the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Contirol Laws) Act,
(1) [1976] 2 S.C.R. 785.
GURCHARAN SINGH v. v. K. KAUSHAL (Pathak, !.) 497

1957 when it was amended in 1972. In its nature and quality it is A
not identifiable with the power vested under the unamended. Act. A
power conferred by statute is distinguished by the character and
> ·content of its essential components. If one or more material
-components characterising the power cannot be identified. with the
material components of another, they are two different and distinct
powers. Although broadly the power envisaged in s. 3 of the amended B
Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 is a power
-Of extension even as it was under the unamended Act, there is a vital
qualitative difference between the two. The power under the
unamended. Act was a limited power. It could operate prospectively
-0nly. There was . no choice in the matter. After· amendment, the
Act provided for a power which could be exercised retrospectively.
c
The power extended to giving .retrospective effect to. an enactment in
;.. force in the State in the form in which that enactment was in force
.on the date on which the extension was made. It was a power whose
reach and cover extended far beyond what the power under the
:unamended Act could achieve. D
We are of the view that in issuing the Notification dated 24th
January, 1974 and thereby extending the East Punjab Urban Rent
Restriction Act to the Ambala Canto.nment retrospectively with effect
from 26th January, 1950, the Central Government exercised a power
not available to it when it issued the Notification dated 21st November,
1969. The contention that the issue of the Notification of 24th E
January, 1974 amounted to a farther exercise of power conferred
'by s. 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act,
1957, under which the earlier Notification was issued is without force
.and must be rejected. '

The second point raised is that in clause (c) of the proviso to F
·s. 3(2) of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act,
1957, which speaks of "the commencement of this Act", the words
"'this Act" refer to the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control
Laws) Amendment Act: 1972, which commenced to operate from 2nd
June, 1972. The argument is founded in fallacy. The words "this
G
Act" refer to the principal Act in which sub-section 3(2) is inserted
by virtue of the amendment, and that Act, by virtue of s. 2(2) as
.amended, must be deemed to have come into force on 26th January,
1950. .
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
H
Appeal dismiss.ed..
lP. B. R.