M.N. ABDUL PAWOOFversusPICHAMUTHU AND ORS.

                         M.N. ABDUL PAWOOF                                    A
                                     v
                       PICHAMUTHU AND ORS.

                           FEBRUARY 10, 2000

                  [B.N. KIRPAL AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.J                            B

        Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979: Section 3(3)-Proviso.

        Expression ?lfot less than Rs. 1200"-Scope and meaning of

        Debto1~Who      is-Respondents executed a usufrnctury mortgage in
                                                                              c
favour of appellant-Annual rental value of the property Rs.
1200--Respondent's application for claim as debtor within the meaning of the
Act-Dismissal by Trial Cow~Trial Court order affinned by First Appellate
Court--On second appeal High Court held the respondents were debtors
within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the Act-lt came to the conclusion that D
the annual rental value of Rs. 1200 was not enough to deprive them of the
benefit of being regarded as debtors-Appeal before Supreme Cowt-Held if
the annual rental value of the property which is owned by a debtor is not less
than Rs. 1200 then he would be covered under sub-section (iii) of proviso to
Section 3(3j and he would not be deemed to be a debtoJ--Not less than 1200 E
means that the minimum aggregate annual rental value should be at least
 1200 if the aggregate re11tal value was less than 1200 only then the re~pondents
would have been regarded as not being covered by the proviso to Section
3(3)-The High Court erred in arriving at the conclusion that even though the
annual relltal value was Rs. 1200 the respondents were entitled to the benefit
of the said proviso and would be regarded as debtors within the meaning of F
that Act.

      Raja Kulkarni & Ors. v. State of Bombay, [1954) SCR 384; K.P.
Varghese v.J.T.O. &Anr., [1981] 4SCC173;Karnail Singh & Ors. v.Darshan
Singh & Ors., [1995) Supp. 1 SCC 760; The Pioneer Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. The G
Municipal Council, Nagarcoil, [1961] 3 SCR 609; C.l. T. Calcutta v. Mis.
Braithwaita & Co. Led., [1993) 2 SCC 262 and Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v.
India Sernrities Ltd., [1999) 3 SCC 1, referred to.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2761 of
1989.                                                                         II
                                    761
    762                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2.CC<J] 1 S.C.R.
A        From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.88 of the Madras High
    Court in C.M.S.A. No. 30 of 1983.

          K.V. Viswanathan and S.R. Setia for the Appdlant.

          V. Sudter for S. Srinivasan for the Respondents.
B
          The following Order of the Court was ddivered :

          The only qut:stion which ar: ses for consideration in this appeal is as
    to what is the meaning of the expression "not less than Rs. 1200" occurring
    in the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1979 (hereinaftt:r referred to as 'the
C   said Act').

          The father of the respondent had executed a usufructuary mortgage
    deed in respect of a property in favour of the appellant herein for a sum
    of Rs. 10,000 on 25-12-1967. This property was given on lease to some
D   tenants for more than 10 years. Under the provisions of the said Act the
    respondents filed an application seeking direction that the usufructuary
    mortgage had been completely discharged. The respondents claimed to be
    debtors within the meaning of the Act.

          The appellant herein contended that the respondents could not be
E   regarded as debtors within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the said Act
    inasmuch as the rental value of the respondent's property was as much if
    not more than what is required under the Act. The District Munsif dis-
    missed the respondents application which was affirmed in appeal. In
    second appeal however the High Court came to the conclusion that the
F   respondents were debtors within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the Act.
    It came to the conclusion that the annual rental value of Rs. 1200 was not
    enough to deprive them of the benefit of being regarded as debtors.

          The admitted fact being that the annual rental value of the property
    belonging to the rt:spondents being Rs. 12CO the question is whether the
G   respondents can be regarded as debtors. The relevant provision of Section
    3 (3) of the said Act reads as under :

                   "3(3) 'debtor' means any person from whom any debt is due;

                   Provided that a person shall not be deemt:d to be a debtor if
H            he,
                      M.X ABDLL PAWOOF v. PICHA\1LTHli                       763

               (i) has in both the financial years ending on the 31st March,         A
            1977 and the 31st March, 1978, been assessed to --

               (a) income-tax under thi;; Income tax Act, 1961 (Central Act
            XLIII of 1961) or under the income tax law in force in any foreign
            country; or
                                                                                     B
               (b) agricultural income-tax under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural
            Income-Tax Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1955) or under any
            law in force in any other State or t.:nion Territory in India; or

                (ii) has, in both the financial years ending on the 31st March,
            1977 and the 31st March, 1978, been assessed to sales tax under
                                                                                     c
            the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil !'ladu Act I
            of 1959) or under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act
            LXXIV of 1956); or

                 (iii) has in all the four half-years immediatdy preceding the 1st   D
             March, 1978 been assessed to propcrty or house tax in respect of
             buildings or lands other than agricultural lands, under the Tamil
             Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of
             1920), the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (Tamil
             Nadu Act IV of 1919), the Madurai City Municipal Corporation            E
             Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1971), the Tamil Nadu
~
             Panchayats Act, 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXV of 1958), the
 I           Cantonments Act, 1924 (Central Act II of 1924) or any law govern-
_;
             ing municipal or local bodies in this state or in any other State or
             Union Territory in India, provided that the aggregate annual rental
             value of such buildings and lands whether let out or in the occupa-     F
             tion of the owner, is not ltss than rupees om: thousand and two
             hundred."

           On a careful reading of the said provision, it appears that any person
     from whom dt:bt is due is n:gardcd as a dt:btor. The proviso to sub-section
     (3) excludes certain rategories of persons from being regarded as debtors. G
     According to sub-clause (iii) a person who owes money shall not be
     deemed to be a debtor if he has in all the four half-years preceding 1st
     March, 1978 been assessed to property or house tax provided that the
     aggregate annual value of such buildings or lands is not Jess than Rs. 1200.
     Owner of a property is thus sought to be excluded from the definition of H
    764                  SUPREME COCRT REPORTS                   (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A debtor, but not evc:ry owner is excluded as person who own property having
    less rental value will continue to be regarded as debtors.

          As already noticed what has to be ;een is as to what is tht: me.aning
    of the expression is "not less than Rs. 1200"' occurring in the afore,aid
    proviso. According to the High Court the respondents would get the
B   benefit and would be regarded as debtors even though the annual rental
    value of the propcrty owned by them is Rs. 1200. The implication of the
    decision of tac High Court is that it is only if the rental value was more
    than Rs. 1200 that the proviso would have been attracted.

C        As we read the said proviso it appears to us that the expression .. not
  less than Rs. 1200· means that the minimum amount of rental value if it is
  Rs. 1,200 then tht person would be coven:d by the proviso and would not
  be regarded as a debtor. ln Stroud's Judicial Dictionary 5th Edn. at page
  1700 it is not.:d that "where a statute prescribes a penalty for an offence of
  ''not less" than a stated amount, that i::. the minimum penalty that justices
D can impose, notwithstanding that the section, prescribing tht penalty, says
  that the offender ""shall be liable" thcn.:to; and the power to mitigate given
  by the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 (c.49) s.4, was in such a case
  qualified so :hat mitigation could not go below such minimum Osborn v.
  Wood, [1897] 1 Q.B. 197."
E         In Raja Kulkarni & Ors. v. State of Bombay, (1954] SCR 384 a
    question arose regarding the recognition of a trade union. Section 13 of
    the Bombay Industrial Regulation Act, 1946 provided that a repn:sentative
    union should have a membership of "not less than 15 per cent of the total
    number of employees.'' While interpreting this provision it was observed at
F   page 390 that "the statute lays down a minimum qualification of 15 per cent
    of membership to enable the union to be called a representative union..... "
    After laying down the test of not less than 15 per cent it was perfectly
    reasonable "not to allow any other union such as the appt:llants to interpose
    in a dispute on behalf of the textile workt:rs when they did not command
G   the minimum percentage or when their membership fell below tht:
    prescribed percentage.'' The view which was expressed in Raja Kulkarni
    case (supra) clearly was that when the statute uses the expression not less
     than a particular figure then that figure i~ the minimum.

          ln K.P. Va!ghese v. I. T,O. & Anr., [1981 [ 4 SCC 173 this Court was
H required to interpret section 52 of the Income tax Act 1961 where in
                    M.N. ABDUL PAWOOF v. PICHA\HJTHU                        765

sub-section (2) the Income tax Officer would get jurisdiction to acquire a         A
capital asset if the fair marxet value of that asset exceeded the full value
of consideration "by an amount of not less than 15 per cent of t!ie value
declartd ...." Analysing this provision it was held that according to sub-
section (2) the diffon:nce bt:twe..:n the fair market value and the considera-
tion declarcd will have to be 15 pt:r cent or more to enable the Income tax        B
Officer to excrcise jurisdiction under that stction. To the same effect is the
dtcision of this Court in Kamai/ Singh & Ors. v. Darshan Singh & Ors.,
[1995) Supp. (1) SCC 760. Stction 4 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act,
1952 enables the Government to declare any village or the group or
contiguous villages to constitute one or more sabha area if thty had
population of "not less than 500." Interpretating this provision it was held       C
that what was required for the exercise of powers under said Section 4 was
that there should be a minimum population of 500. In other words, the
expression population of not less than 500 was interpreted to mean that
minimum population should be 500.
                                                                                   D
       The High Court has referred to the decision of this Court in The
Pioneer Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. The Municipal Council, Nageroi4 (1961) 3 SCR
609 where the expression was, which was being interpreted, "not being less
than one month." This Court held that in order that a notice should be
valid the expression not being less than one month would mean that there
                                                                                   E
must be notice of 30 clear days. This would be possible only if the 1st and
the last day on which the notice is issued is excluded. Rather than helping
the respondent in our opinion the said decision fortifies the view which we
have taken namely, that the period specified is the minimum period. Not
less than one month meant that 30 clear days notice had to be given and
it is only in order to ensure that 30 cltar days notice is given that, basing
                                                                                   F
on section 9 of the General Clauses Act, it was observed that the 1st and
the last date should be excluded.

       Similarly, in C.J. T. Calcutta v. Mis. Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., [1993) 2
sec 262 where the Court had to consider the expression "of a period not            G
less than 7 years" it was held that the period cannot be even one minute
less than 7 years. The ratio of this decision is not different than the decision
of this Court in Kamai/ Singh v. K..P. Rarghese and Raja Kulkarni, (supra).
To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Saketh India Ltd. & Ors.
V.   India Securities Ltd., (1999) 3 sec 1.                                        H
    766                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (ZC::0] 1 S.C.R.
A        From the aforesaid discussion it clearly follows that if the annual
  rental value of the property which is owned by a debtor is not less than Rs.
  1,2CO then he would be covered under sub-section (iii) of proviso to Section
  3(3) and he would not be deemed to be a debtor. Not less than 1,2C:J means
  that the minimum aggregate annual rental value should be at least 1,200.
  If the aggregate rental value was less than 1,2C:J only then the respondents
B would have been regarded as not being covered by the proviso to Section
  3(3). The High Court, in our opinion, was therefore, not correct in arriving
  at the conclusion that even though the annual rental value was Rs. 1,200
  the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the said proviso and would
  be regarded as debtors within the meaning of that Act.
c        For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the
    High Court is set aside and that of the lower appellate court is affirmed.
    No order as to costs.

    T.NA.                                                    Appeal allowed.




                                                                                  .   .