Holding

The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) does not obligate the Rent Controller to calculate arrears, and Rules 4(c), 5(1) and 6 are directory; their non‑compliance does not invalidate the eviction petition.

Summary

The landlord, Excelsior Needle Industries, filed an eviction petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 alleging non‑payment of rent by the tenant, Rubber House. The tenant contended that the rent increase was unlawful, that he had already paid rent up to March 1975 and had tendered arrears with interest as assessed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority held that the tenant had not paid the full arrears and ordered his eviction; the High Court dismissed the tenant’s civil revision, holding that the failure to state the quantum of arrears in the petition did not invalidate it. Before the Supreme Court the tenant argued that (i) the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) imposed a duty on the Rent Controller to calculate arrears, and (ii) Rules 4(c), 5(1) and 6 were mandatory, so non‑compliance should render the eviction petition void. The Court held that the proviso merely requires the tenant to pay or tender the arrears, not the Controller to calculate them, and that the cited Rules are directory, not mandatory, so their non‑compliance does not invalidate the petition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act imposes a statutory duty on the Rent Controller to calculate the quantum of arrears and interest.
Whether non‑mention of the amount of arrears in the eviction application violates mandatory provisions of Rules 4(c), 5(1) and 6, rendering the petition invalid.
Whether the non‑compliance of the above Rules is directory or mandatory and whether it causes prejudice sufficient to invalidate the eviction proceeding.

Legislation cited

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973s. 13(2)(i), s. 15(6)
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976s. Rule 4(c), s. Rule 5(1), s. Rule 6

Subjects

evictionrent arrearsstatutory interpretationmandatory vs directory provisionsHaryana Urban Rent Actlandlord‑tenant disputecivil revisionspecial leave petition

Judgment

RUBBER HOUSE
A v.
. EXCELLSIOR NEEDLE INDUSTRIES PVT. LID.

MARCH 10, 1989

B [L.M. SHARMA ANDS. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.]

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973-
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976--Section
13(2)(i)/Rules 4(c), 5(1) and 6--Tenant-Eviction of on ground of
arrears of rent-Non-mentioning of quantum of arrears of rent-
Whether involves invalidating consequences on eviction petition.
c
· Statutory Construction-Mandatory and directory provisions of
statute-Distinction and consequences of

This is a tenant's appeal filed after obtaining Special Leave from
D the Court. The Respondent-landlord of tenanted premises (i.e. two
sheds) filed a petition for ejectment of the appellant from the premises in
question before the Rent Controller. According to the Respondent-
landlord the monthly rent payable by the appellant was Rs.950 p.m. which
was liable to be enhanced nnder the provisions of Haryana Urban (Con-
trol of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 from Rs.950 to Rs.ll42 p.m.
E Accordingly, the respondent caused a notice to be given to the appellant
claiming rent@ Rs.1142 w.e.f. 26.6.1974 till June 1977 and since the
appellant defaulted in making payment of the rent, he was liable to be
ejected from the demised premises. The tenant denied that the rent was
liable to be enhanced as claimed by the landlord. He further asserted
\;.(
that he had already paid rent upto March 1975 by means of cheques and
F that he had tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and costs t
as assessed by the Rent Controller on 5.12.1977. On this reasoning he
urged that he was not liable to be evicted on the ground taken in the
Petition. The landlord in the replication denied the receipt of rent for
the period from May 1974 to November, 1977@ Rs.ll42 p.m. Alterna-
tively he claimed that the rent to the extent of Rs.36,IOO was doe to him
G from the appellant@ Rs.950 p.m. from 1st May, 1974 to June 30, 1977.

The Rent Controller held that the landlord-respondent was not
entitled to recover the rent @ Rs.ll42 p.m. but only Rs.950 p.m. as
agreed between the parties and the appellant has failed to pay the rent
from 1.4.1975. Accordingly, the Rent Controller directed the ejectment
H of the appellant from the premises by granting him two months time.
986
''. RUBBER HOUSE v, EXCELLSIOR INDUSTRIES 987

The appellate-authority having affirmed the order of the Rent Con-
"'' !roller, the appellant filed a Civil Revision before the High Court under
A
Suh-s. (6) of Sec. 15 of the Act. Before the High Court it was urged by
the appellant that since in the application for ejectment no specific
amount of arrears of rent due was mentioned as contemplated by Cl. (c)
of Rule 4 and Clause (1) of Rule 5 of the Haryana Urban (Control of
Rent and Eviction) Rules he could not be evicted. Finding no substance B
'" in the said contention, the High Court rejected the Civil Revision. Hence
this appeal.

..-( The appellant raised two contention before this Court viz., that
the High Court has ignored to note the statutory obligation cast on the
Rent Controller as per the proviso attached to Sec. 13(2)(1) of the Act
c
.. requiring him to calculate and determine the quantum of arrears of
rent; even at the first instance has not been complied with and (ii) that
the application for ejectment was not in accordance with the mandatory
provisions of Rule 4(c) 5(1) and 6 of the Rules framed under the Act.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court, D

HELD: The proviso to Sec. 13(2)(i) requires the tenant to pay or
tender the actual arrears of rent, within 15 days of the first hearing of
the application for ejectment after due service alongwith the interest to
""' be calculated by the Controller at 8 per cent per annum on such arrears
together with such costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by E
the Controller. [994B I

'
When there is a statntory obligation on the tenant either to pay or
I tender the arrears of rent within a period of 15 days of the first hearing
~ of the application for ejectment after due notice it is for him to calculate
-t the exact arrears of rent due and to pay or tender the same and if the F
tenant fails to do so he is deemed to have not paid or made the valid
tender of the rent. [994D I

The- non-compliance of Rule 4(c) i.e. the non-mentioning of the
quantum of arrears of rent, does involve no invalidatiitg consequence
and also does not visit any penalty. [999B-C] G
,)- Rules 4(c), 5(1) and 6 are not mandatory but only directory. [999C]

If the statute is mandatory, the things done not in the manner
or form prescribed have no effect or validity. But if it is directory,
the non-compliance may not lead to any serious and adverse con- H
sequence. [995H; 996A]
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A The word "shall" in its ordinary import is obligatory. Neverthe- .;,
less the word "Shall" need not be given that connotation in each and
every case and the provisions can be interpreted as directory instead of
mandatory depending upon the purpose which the legislature intended
to achieve as disclosed hy the object, design, purpose and scope of the
statute. [998H; 999A-B]
B
No prejudice is writ large in the present case because proof of
prejudice is also one of the necessary criteria besides non-compliance of
the provision to invalidate the Act. [999G]

Sheo Narain v. Sher Singh, [1980) I SCR 836, Not applicable.

c Sham Lal (dead) by /rs. v. Atme Nand Jain Sabha (Regd.) Dal
Bazar, [1987) I, SCC 222, Not applicable.

Montreal St. Rly. Co. v. Normandin, [1917) A.C. 170, referred
to.
D
Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, [1962] 2 SCR 880, tefer-
red to.

Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur,
[ 1965) l SCR 970, referred to.
E
K. Kamraj Nadar v. Kun ju Thevar and Others, I1959 I SCR 583,
referred to.

Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Eleciion Tribunal, Hyderabad, [1964)
6 SCR 213, referred to.
F
State of UP. & Others v. Babu Ram Upadhya, 11961] 2 SCR
679, referred to.

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, [1983) 2 SCC 217, referred to.

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2789
of 1980.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.1980 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 216of1980.

H R.F. Nariman and D.N. Misra for the Appellant.
RUBBER HOUSE v. EXCELLSIOR INDUSTRIES IPANDIAN, J.l 989

Rakesh Sahney, K.M.M'. Khan and Vineet Kumar for the
A
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. This appeal by special leave
under Article 136 of the Constitution is against the judgment and B
order dated 29.5.1980 in Civil Revision No. 216 of 1980 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

~- · The respondent herein being the owner of the tenanted premises
(i.e. two sreds) filed a petition for ejectment before the Rent Control-
ler against the tenant, the appellant herein on the ground that the
tenant had not paid the rent from 1.5c74. The monthly rent for the
c
premises was orginally Rs.950. According to the landlord under the
provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the rent of the demised
premises was liable to be increased from Rs.950 to Rs.1142 per
mensem. The landlord gave notice to the tenant to pay the rent at the D
enhanced rate of Rs.1142 per mensem with effect from 26th June,1974
but the tenant defaulted in making the payment of rent and as such he
was liable to be ejected from the premises on the ground of non-
~ payment of rent. The tenant resisted the application stating that the
landlord was not entitled to claim enhanced rent at the rate mentioned
in the ejectment application under the provisions of the Act and no E
legal notice was served on him claiming the arrears of rent and he had
already paid the rent upto March 1975 by means of cheques and he had
tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and cost as assessed
by the Rent Controller on 5th December 1977 and hence the sole
ground of his ejectment from the demised premises was no longer
available to the landlord. In the replication the landlord denied that F
the tenant had paid the rent to him for the period from May 1974 to
30th November 1977 @ Rs.1142 per mensem. In the alternative, he
claimed that the rent to the extent of Rs.36, 100 was due to him from
the tenant@ Rs.950 per mensem for the period 1st May 1974 to 30th
June, 1977 and that the tenant having defaulted in making the payment
was liable to be ejected. It may be stated that the application for' G
eviction was filed on 7.6. 77.

The Rent Controller held that the landlord was not entitled to
recover the rent @Rs.1142 p.m. but only @ Rs.950 p.m, as agreed
between the parties and he had failed to pay the rent from 1.4.75. On
the basis of the above finding the Rent Controller directed the eject- H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19891 1 S.C.R.

A ment of the tenant from the premises by granting two months' time.

This order of the Rent Controller, on appeal, was confirmed by
the Appellate Authority. On being aggrieved with the Order of the
Appellate Authority, the tenant preferred a Civil Revision Petition
before the High Court under Sub-section (6) of SectiOn 15 of the Act.
B On behalf of the tenant, it was urged before the High Court on the
strength of Clause 'C' of Rule 4 and Clause (1) of Rule 5 of the
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules 1976 framed
under Section 23 of the Act that since in the application for ejectment
no specific amount of arrears due was mentioned, the application was
not maintainable. The High Court rejected this plea observing thus:
c "Admittedly, no such objection as to the non-compliance
of the said rules was taken either in the written statement
or before the Rent Controller, inasmuch as it was not raised
even before the Appellate Authority. Moreover, it has not
been shown that any prejudice was caused to the tenant on
D account of this non-compliance on the part of the landlord.
Under these circumstances, no such plea can be available
to the tenant in this revision petition for the first time
particularly when it does not affect the merits of the case
nor has it caused any prejudice to him."

E Thereafter, coming to the question of arrears of rent, the High
Court found thus:

"Moreover, the tenant clearly stated on 5th December
1977 that according to him, the total amount, due from him
at the rate of Rs.950 p.m. from 1st April 1975 to 31st May
F 1977 was Rs.24,700 out of which Rs.21,696 had already
been paid by him to the landlord, which he subsequently
failed to prove by leading evidence. Under these circums-
tances, since the tenant failed to prove the payment of the
arrears of rent as claimed by him in his statement recorded
on 5th December 1977 he was liable to ejectment on the
G ground of non-payment of rent as provided under Section
13(2)(i) of the Act."

On the above finding, the Revision Petition was dismissed.
Hence this present appeal.

H We shall point out at this juncture that the amount of Rs.21,696
,
RUBBER HOUSE v. EXCELLSIOR INDUSTRIES [PANDIAN, J.] 991

which the tenant claims to have paid includes a sum of Rs.18,844.14
A
which was found by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority
as arrears of rent.

Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/tenant assails the impugned judgment of the High Court on
two legal grounds; firstly, that the High Court has ignored to note that B
the statutory obligation cast on the Rent Controller as per the proviso
attached to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act requiring him to calculate and
determine the quantum of arrears of rent even at the first instance has
not been complied with and secondly that the application for eject-
ment was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Rule
4(c), 5(1) and 6 of the Rules framed under the Act and as such the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on both the grounds. c

We shall now take the first ground of attack. Before dealing with
the point of law involved, it may be necessary to extract the relevant
portion of Section 13(2)(i) of the Act with its first proviso with which
we are concerned. D

"13(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply
to the Controller, for direction in that behalf. If the Con-
troller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the application, is satisfied-
E
(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent
due from him in respect of the building or rented
land within fifteen days after the expiry of the
time fixed in the .agreement of tenancy with his
landlord or in the absence of any such agreement
by the last day of the month next following that F
for which the rent is payable.

Provided that if the tenant, within a period of fifteen days
of the first hearing, of the application for ejectment after
due service, pays or tenders the arrears of rent and
interest, to be calculated by the Controller, at eight G
percentum per annum on such arrears together with such
costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by the
Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or
tendered the rent within the time aforesaid."

The answer to the first legal question mainly turns on tlie H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A interpretation of the proviso to Section 13 which refers to the following ;.
essential conditions namely:

1. There must be an application for ejectment before the Court;

2. The tenant, within a period of fifteen days of the first hearing
B of the application after due service, pays or tenders:
>
(a) the arrears of rent; and
-...
(b) the interest to be calculated by the Controller at eight per ~--
. >-
cent per annum on such arrears together with such costs
of the application, if any as may be allowed by the
c Controller;
~
If the above said two conditions are satisfied, then the tenant
shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time
required by law.
D The last paragraph of Section 13(2) enjoins that where the above
second condition of the proviso is not fulfilled the Controller shall
make an Order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of
the building and where he is satisfied that the rent has been paid the
application of the landlord must be rejected. i
E Therefore, the sole question which has to be determined in the
case on hand is whether or not the deposit made by the appellant was ~
legally valid. On facts, the Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority
and the High Court found that the appellant/tenant has not deposited
the actual rent due payable by him except a part of it namely \J.
Rs.2902.96 along with the interest of Rs.261.27 and the cost of Rs.35
F totalling to Rs.3199.23 which deposit was less by Rs.18844.14 even
.....
calculated at the rate of Rs.950 per mensem. In fact, the learned
counsel who appeared for the appellant/tenant before the Appellate
Authority has conceded ·the arrears of rent which fact is found in
paragraph 6 of the Order of the Appellate Author;cy reading thus:
G "The learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded
before me that he did not challenge the finding of the Court -.(
below that the respondent was in arrears of rent in the
amount of Rs.18,844 on the date he tendered the arrears of
rent together with interest and costs assessed by the Rent
Controller."
H
RUBBER HOUSE v. EXCELLSJOR INDUSTRIES [PANDIAN, J.J 993

An attempt on the part of the tenant that he had paid that
A
amount has been totally rejected by all the Courts. Only on the above
finding, the Courts below held that the tenant had not deposited the
full and valid rent actually due but only a small part of it and as such it
is menifest that the second condition enjoined by the proviso was not
fulfilled at all and on that ground alone it could be held that the
deposit was not valid one. B

The learned counsel, Mr. R.F. Nariman drew. our attention to
two judgments of this Court in Shea Narain v. Sher Singh, [1980] I
SCR 836 and Sham Lal (dead) by Lrs. v. Atme Nand Jain Sabha
(Regd.), Dal Bazar, [1987] 1 SCC 222. In our considered view both
these decisions cannot be of any assistance to the appellant in the
present case because the points for determination that arose in those c
two cases were different.

Mr. R.F. Nariman then advanced an argument that a statutory
duty is cast under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act on the Rent Controller to
calculate and determine the arrears of rent as well as the interest to be D
paid by the tenant within a ·period of 15 days of the first hearing of the
application for ejectment after due service, but since the Controller
has failed to discharge that obligation no eviction can be ordered
_. particularly when there is a \lispµte with regard to the quantum of
arrears of rent. From the judgment on appeal, it seems that a conten-
tion substantially identical to the one presently made was advanced E
before the High Court which repelled the same holding thus:
•.
"Going through the whole scheme of the Act, there is no
provision that the Rent Controller should decide at the first
date of hearing the amount due as arrears of rent ..... -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If this argument of the learned F
counsel for the petitioner is accepted, in that situation the
tenant will have another opportunity for making the pay-
ment of the arrears due from him, which, as stated earlier,
is neither the scheme of the Act nor is in consonance with
the language used in the proviso to Section 13(2)(i). On the
first date of hearing, it is the duty of the tenant to calculate G
the arrears of rent, which according to him are due from
him and which he inteds to tender on the first date of hear-
ing .................................. Since payment
of rent is obligatory on the tenant and that too within the
time prescribed in Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, it is for him
to calculate the rent which is in arr!'ars an\l p~y !he same a§ H
p~ovided by the statute." · ·
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

After a careful scrutiny of the Section 13(2)(i) and the first pro-
A
visa annexed thereto, we see no force in the submissions of the learned *
counsel that there is any statutory duty cast on the Rent Controller
even in the first instance to determine and calculate the arrears of rent
and the interest but on the contrary the proviso req•1ires the tenant to
pay or tender the actual arrears ot rent within 15 days of the first
B hearing of the application for ejectment after due service alongwith )
the interest to be calculated by the Controller at 8 per cent per annum
on such arrears together with such costs of the application, if any, as
~

may be allowed by the Controller. What the proviso requires is that
the Controller has to calculate the interest at 8 per cent per annum on ~>
such arrears of rent and determine the costs of the application, if any.
If the argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted then in every
c case the Rent Controller has to hold an enquiry at the first instance
and determine the arrears of rent even on the first date of hearing ~
which is in the nature of things not possible without any evidence, nor
is it contemplated under the scheme of the Act. When there is a
statutory obligation on the tenant either to pay or tender the arrears of
D rent within a period of 15 days of the first hearing of the application for
ejectment after due notice it is for him to calculate the exact arrears of
rent due and to pay or tender the same and if the tenant fails to do so
he is deemed to have not paid or made the valid tender of the rent.
Hence we hold that this argument advanced on behalf of the appellant ~
is misconceived and fallacious.
E
For the reasons aforementioned, we hold that there is no merit in
the first contention. .•
We shall now examine the second legal contention with refer- \
'!U
ence to Rules 4(c), 5(1) and 6 of the Rules under the Act which rules
F read as follows: i'
4. Application for eviction. Section 13 Application under
section 13 of the Act, shall besides the particulars
mentioned in Rules 5 and 6 contain the following particu-
lars namely: (emphasised)
G
(a) xxxxxxxxxx

(b) xxxxxxxxxx

(c) The amount of arrears due and the period of
H default.
RUBBER HOUSE v. EXCELLSIOR INDUSTRIES IPANDIAN, J.] 995

.,.
. 5(1) Applications Section 4 and 13(1) In addition to the
A
particulars mentioned in rules 3, 4 and 6 as far as
these may be applicable, every application made
under this Act shall contain simple and concise narra-
five of the facts which the party by whom or on whose
behalf the statement of pleading is made, believes to
be material to the case and which he either admits or B
believes that he will be able to prove. (emphasised)

........ {~
6. Particulars to be furnished to the Controller Section
21(1) Every landlord and every tenant of a building or
rented land shall furnish to the Controller, or any person
authorised by him in that behalf, the following particu-
Jars namely: (emphasised)
c
~
(a) name and number of the building or rented land, if
any, or its description and boundaries sufficient to
identify it;
D
(b) street and municipal ward or division in which the
building or rented land is situated;

J, (c) name and address of the landlord, if the particulars
are furnished by the tenant and name of the tenant, if
the particulars are furnished by the landlord; E

... (d) whether the building is a residential, non-residential
or a scheduled building; and
l-{' (e) nature of amenities provided by the landlord to the
1 tenant F

Mr. R.F. Nariman laid stress on the word "shall" occurring in the
above rules particularly Rule 4(c) and contended that these rules are
mandatory in character and so the non-compliance would amount to
violation of the imperative (i.e. mandatory) provisions of these rules.
According to him the respondent/landlord has not specified the G
'amount of arrears due' in strict substantial compliance of Rule 4(c)
~ and as such the present application for ejectment has to be thrown.out.
The answer to the above contention depends upon whether these rules
are mandatory or directory which question has to be adjudged in the
light of the intention of the legislature as disclosed by the object,
purpose and scope of the statufe. No doubt, if the statute is mandatory . H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 1 S.C.R.

A the things done not in the manner or form prescribed have no effect or
validity, but if it is directory, the non-compliance may not lead to any
serious and adverse consequence. A valuable guide for ascertaining
the intention of the Legislature is found in Maxwell "The Interpreta-
tion of Statutes" (Twelfth Edition) Chapter J3 at page 314) under the
B caption "Intentions attributed to the legislature when it expresses
none" reads thus: )

"Passing from the interpretation of the language of statu-
tes, it remains to consider what intentions are to be at-
tributed to the legislature on questions necessarily arising
out of its enactments and on which it has remained silent.
c
.................................... It is impossible to
lay down any general rule for determining whether a provi- ;i
sion is imperative or directory."

Lord Cambell in Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner, [1860) 2 De
0
G .F. & J. 502 at pp. 507, 508 observed:

"No universal rule can be laid down for the construction of
statutes as to whether mandatory enactments shall be con-
sidered directory only or obligatory with an implied nulli-
fication for disobedience. It is the duty of Courts of Justice
E
to try to get at the real intention of the Legislature by
carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be
construed."

Lord Penzance in Howard v. Bodington, [18771 2 P.O. 203 at p.
F 211 said:

"I believe, as far as any rule is concerned, you cannot
safely go further than that in each case you must look to the
subject-matter; consider the importance of the provision
that has been disregarded, and the relation of that provi-
sion to the general object intended to be secured by the
G
Act; and upon a review of the case in that aspect decide
whether the matter is what is called imperative or only
directory."

In 'Craies on Statute Law' (Sixth Edition) at page 63, the follow-
H ing quotation is found:
RUBBER HOUSE v. EXCELLSJOR INDUSTRIES IPANDIAN, J.] 997

"When a statute is passed for the purpose of enabling
A
something to be done, and prescribes the formalities which
are to attend its performance, those prescribed formalities
which are esseniial to the validity of the thing when done
are called imperative or absolute; but those which are not
essential and may be disregarded without invalidating the
. .( thing to be done, are called directory" B

See Montreal Street Rly. Co. v. Normandin, [1917] AC 170.

With reference to non-compliance of the directory enactment in
'Craies on Statute Law' it is said at page 261:

"But on the other hand, if.a statute is merely directory, it is
c
immaterial, so far as relates to the validity of the thing to be
done, whether the provisions of the statute are accurately
followed out or not."

See also 'On the Construction of Statutes' by Crawford. In Wood- D
ward v. Sarsons, [1875] L.R. 10 C.P. 733 at page 746 it is explained as
to what is called an absolute enactment or mandatory enactment as
follows:

"An absolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled
exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be E
obeyed or fulfilled substantially."

In Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, [1962] 2 SCR p. 880 a
question arose whether Section 175(3) of the Government of India
Act, 1935 which requires that contracts on behalf of the Government
of India shall be executed in the form prescribed is mandatory or F
directory. The Supreme Court at page 893 expressed its view as
follows:

"Where a statute requires that·a thing shall be done in the
prescribed manner or form but does not set out the con-
sequences of non-compliance, the question whether the G
provision was mandatory or directory has to be adjudged in
the light of the intention of the legislature as disclosed by
the object, purpose and scope of the statute. If the statute
is mandatory, the thing done not in the manner or form
prescribed can have no effect or validity; if it is directory,
penalty may be incurred for non-compliance, but the act or H
thing done is regarded as good."
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989] 1 S.C.R.

In Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur,
A 11965] 1 SCR 970, certain questions arose for consideration whether
"
the whole of Section 131(3) of U.P. Municipalities Act was mandatory
or the part of it requiring publication in the manner laid down in
Section 94(3) of the said Act i.e. in a Hindi Newspaper was merely
directory; Wanchoo, J as he then was speaking for the majority said:
B
"The question whether a particular provision of a statute
which on the face of it appears mandatory, inasmuch as it
uses the word "shall"-as in the present case is merely
directory cannot be resolved by laying down any general
rule and depends upon the facts of each case and for that
purpose the object of the statute in making the provision is
c the determining factor. The purpose for which the provi-
sion has been made and its nature, the intention of the
legislature in making the provision, the serious general
inconvenience or injustice to persons resulting from
whether the provision is read one way or the other, the
D relation of the particular provision to other provisions deal-
ing with the same subject and other considerations which
may arise on the facts of a particular case including the
language of the provision, have all to be taken into account
in arriving at the conclusion whether a particular provision
is mandatory or directory."
E
See also K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kun ju Thevar and Others,
[1959] SCR 583 and Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, ,..
Hyderabad, l1964)6SCR213.

It is apposite to refer to the observation of this Court in Hari
F Vishnu Karnath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, [1955] 1 SCR 1104 dealing
with this problem:

"It is well established that an enactment in form mandatory
might in substance be directory and that the use of the word'
"shall" does not conclude the matter."
G
Reference may be had to (1) State of U.P. & Ors. v. Babu Ram
Upadhya, 11961] 2 SCR 679 and (2) Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, -i
1198312 sec 211.

The word "shall" in its ordinary import is obligatory. Neverthe-
H less, the word "shall" need not be given that connotation in each and
RUBBER HOUSE v. EXCELLSIOR INDUS1RIES IPANDIAN, J.J 999

every case and the provisions can be interpreted as directory instead of A
mandatory depending upon the purpose which the legislature intended
to achieve as disclosed by the object, design, purpose and scope of the
statute. While interpreting the _concerned provisions, regard must be
had to the context, subject matter and object of the slatute in
question.
B
On a close scrutiny of the relevant rules referred supra in the
light of the above principles of statutory interpretation, we are of the
(,-
view that the non-compliance of rule 4(c) i.e. the non-mentioning of
the quantum of arrears of rent, does involve no invalidating conse-
-·~- quence and also does not visit any penalty.
From the above discussion we hold that the rules 4(c), 5(1) and 6 c
are not mandatory but only directory. Jn that view, we see no force in
the contention of the learned counsel that the non-mentioning of the
amount of arrears of rent clue in the application for ejectment has
adversely affected the proceedings of this case and as such the applica-
tion for ejectment is liable to be dismissed on that score. Accordingly,
we reject this contention also. D

Jn the present case, the tenant himself was well aware of the
amount of arrears of rent due about which we have already mentioned
in the earlier portion of this judgment. The present objection as to the
non-compliance of the rules admittedly was not taken either in the
written statement or before the Rent Controller or before the Appel- E
late Authority. For the first time such a contention was raised before
the High Court which has rightly rejected the same, observing thus:

"It has not been shown that any prejudice was caused to
the tenant on account of this non-compliance on the part of
the landlord." F

We are in full agreement with the above view of the High Court
as no prejudice is writ large in the present case because proof of
prejudice is also one of the necessary criteria besides non compliance
of the provision to invalidate the Act e6mplained of as held by Chin-
nappa Reddy, J in Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and G
Another, [1984 I 2 sec 486.
In the result, both the contentions raised by the appellant fail.
For the reasons hereinbefore mentioned, the appeal is dismissed with
costs.
H
Y.L. Appeal dismissed.