JUDGMENT
S.K. Choudhuri, J.
1. This revision by the tenant-defendant is directed against the order dated 21st November, 1978, passed by the Second Additional Munsif, Ranchi, in Title Suit No. 117 of 1975 directing the defendant to deposit arrears of rent from September 1975 –the month the suit has been instituted at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month within fifteen days up to the date of the order failing which the defence was ordered to be struck off. By the same order the suit was directed to be put up for hearing on 6th December, 1978.
2. This revision application was originally placed for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, who by his order dated 29th November 1979 has referred the case to a Division Bench as the correctness of the unreported decision of a single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No. 14 of 1978 (R) (Bisheswar Das v. Smt. Pratima Mukherjee) dated 31st August, 1978, was doubted. That is how it has been placed before us for hearing.
3. The plaintiff–opposite party, who is the landlord, filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the tenant-defendant from the premises fully described in the schedule of the plaint on the ground of default in payment of rent from October, 1974, and also personal necessity and for violation of the terms of the agreement by converting the premises into store-yard though it was let out for domestic purposes. The defendant-petitioner filed a written statement contesting the suit.
4. During the pendency of the suit, on 11th September 1978, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 11-A of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 3 of 1947} (hereinafter called ‘the 1947 Act’). The defendant filed a rejoinder to the said application and contested the same. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the Court below passed the impugned order.
5. In support of this application Mr. Lakshmi Narayan learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner contended that the 1947 Act having expired after 31st March, 1976 and the new Act, namely, the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (Bihar Act 16 of 1977) (hereinafter called ‘the new Act’) which has been published on 8th September 1977, but applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April 1976 in which Lalpur Police-
station within the local limits of which the disputed property is situate, having not been included in the local limits of Lalpur police station in the schedule, the impugned order which has been passed on the 21st Nov. 1978 in relation to the premises situate within the Lalpur Police station is illegal and invalid. He alternatively contended that the 1947 Act, which has expired after 31st March, 1976, having applied to the premises situate within the local areas comprising the police station Ranchi Kotwali and admittedly on the date of the suit, the suit premises not being situate within the local limits of Ranchi Kotwali Police station, the said Act would not apply and, therefore, on that ground also the impugned order should be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction.
6. In order to appreciate the points raised by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to state here that it has been admitted at the Bar that on the date when the suit was filed (i. e. 15th September 1975), Lalpur Police station had come into existence and the local limits of Ranchi Kotwali Police station was reduced. It may be stated that the area within which the premises in question is situate was originally within the local limits of Ranchi Kotwali Police-station. It is also not disputed that the suit property is situate now within the local limits of Lalpur police station. It has also been admitted that by notification dated 20th April 1980 issued by the Governor of Bihar in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the new Act, Lalpur has been included in the Schedule along with other areas. It will be apposite to quote the said notification as appearing in 1980 B. L. T. (Statute) Part IV) page 348, which was placed before us, which reads:–
“S. O. 438 dated 30th April, 1980, published in Bihar Gazette Extraordinary No. 405, dated April 30, 1980 :–
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977 (Bihar Act XVI of 1977), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to direct that the said Act shall apply to the Lower Bazar, Hind Piri, Lalpur, Sukhdeo Nagar, Part of Kanke, Chutia and Argora police stations of Ranchi Town.
2. The notification, shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 1st of April 1976.
7. Now therefore, if the suit is filed under the new Act in relation to premises situate within the local limits of Lalpur police station, the same undisputedly would be entertainable.
The main question for determination now in the present civil revision is as to whether the present suit which was filed on 15th September, 1975, when the 1947 Act was in force and on which date the premises in question was within the local limits of Lalpur police-station and not within the local limits of Ranchi Kotwali Police-station would be maintainable.
8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously argued that though the 1947 Act was in force on the date when the suit was filed, but Lalpur police-station having come into existence by that time which was till then not included in the new amended Schedule of the 1947 Act, the provisions of the 1947 Act, would not apply to such suits. Mr. Banerjee, on the other hand, however, contended that though Lalpur police station having come into existence much before the filing of the present suit, the said creation of police station under either the Code of Criminal Procedure or under the Police Manual, would not take away the operation of the 1947 Act within the local areas comprising the Ranchi Kotwali Police-station as it existed on the date when the 1947 Act came into force.
9. Before answering the question, it will be necessary to go into the question as to whether the suit which was filed when the 1947 Act was in force would continue after the expiry of the said Act and the provisions of the 1947 Act would apply to such a suit, in spite of its expiry. The answer to this question depends upon the interpretation of the saving clause appearing in sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the new Act which with the proviso reads thus:–
“(3) It shall remain in force up to and including the 31st March, 1976.
(1) Provided that the expiration of this Act under the operation of this subsection shall not:–
(a) render recoverable any sum which during the continuance thereof was irrecoverable or affect the right of a tenant to recover any sum which during the continuance of this Act was recoverable by him thereunder; or
(b) affect any liability incurred under this Act, or any punishment incurred in
respect of any contravention of this Act or any order made thereunder; or
(c) affect any investigation or legal proceeding in respect of any such liability or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation or legal proceeding may be instituted, continued, or enforced and any such punishment may be imposed, as if this Act had not expired.’ Reading clauses (b) and (c) it is manifest that any investigation or legal proceeding in relation to any liability incurred under the 1947 Act or any punishment incurred in respect of any contravention are saved and would continue as if the 1947 Act had not expired for such investigation or legal proceeding. Thus Clauses (b) and (c) of the aforesaid proviso is a complete answer to the effect of expiration of the 1947 Act upon a suit like the present one pending after its expiry. Such a suit, in my view would, therefore, continue and the provisions of the 1947 Act would apply to such suit.
10. Having answered the aforesaid question, now I enter into the question raised by learned Counsel for petitioner regarding the effect of the notification, which may have been issued either under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under some other provisions of law other than the 1947 Act under which Lalpur police station was constituted, upon the present suit, This notification could not be placed before us and learned Counsel for both the parties admitted that the said notification was searched for by them, but could not be found and even on approach to the Officer Incharge, Lalpur police station, the same could not be obtained. It is, however, admitted by learend Counsel for the parties that Lalpur police station was created much before the filing of the present suit. Both parties referred to Sub-section (s) of Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (Section 4 (1) (s) of the old Code), which defines ‘police station’ as follows:
“(s) ‘police station’ means any post or place declared, generally or specifically by the State Government to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf:”
Both sides admitted that the creation of Lalpur police station has been made by issue of the aforesaid notification under this provision. The question, therefore, is as to whether the issue of such a notification under the Code of Criminal Procedure would affect in any way the operation of the 1947 Act in relation to the premises situate within that area of Lalpur police station which was originally within Ranchi Kotwali P. S. There are various ways of describing the area in which the Act would apply. It may be described by boundaries or by some other method found convenient and suitable to the legislature to describe which may be intelligible and clear without any ambiguity. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 is a provision which states that the 1947 Act would apply to the local areas specified in the Schedule and such other areas as may be notified by the State Government in the official gazette or by any authority empowered in this behalf by the State Government. A schedule was inserted in the 1947 Act, and from time to time other areas within different police stations have been inserted in it by virtue of the aforesaid power. That schedule shows that against serial No. 12 in column 2, the name of the district is mentioned as “Ranchi”. The third column of that schedule is meant for mentioning the local areas to which this Act would apply. It may be appropriate to read the entries against serial No. 12 of the Schedule:–
Serial No.
Name of the district
Local areas to which the Act applies.
1.
2.
3.
—
—
—
—
12.
Ranchi
Local areas comprising of police-stations of
Ranchi Sader, Ranchi Kotwali, Gumla, khunti and Lohardaga.
11. Therefore, reading Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the 1947 Act, read with serial No. 12 of the Schedule quoted above, it goes without saying that the
1947 Act applied to the local areas comprising the police station Ranchi Kotwali It is not disputed at the Bar that the disputed premises was situate within the local area of the aforesaid police station, namely, Ranchi Kotwali on the date when the 1947 Act came into force. Before its expiry, however, as already stated, Lalpur police station was created and, therefore, after the new Act came into force Lalpur police station has also been included in the schedule by a separate notification as already quoted above. I have already stated above that the local areas to which the 1947 Act would apply could be mentioned in various ways in the Schedule and one of the modes adopted and found convenient to the legislature was to describe such areas by naming the police stations.
If the 1947 Act was made applicable to the areas in which the said premises is situate which was admittedly within the local area comprising Ranchi Kotwali police station when the 1947 Act came into force, could the said area be reduced by issue of a notification under Section 2 (s) of the Criminal Procedure Code quoted above? Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner clearly conceded that if the area of operation of the 1947 Act could have been described by boundaries, then the notification which has been issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure, would not have affected the operation of 1947 Act in that area. If that be so, I fail to appreciate the arguments that the operation of the 1947 Act within the local limits of Ranchi Kotwali police station as it stood originally would be in application in the area covered by Lalpur police station, which for administrative convenience has been created by issue of notification under the Code of Criminal Procedure or under some other enactment. The power of reduction in area of the operation of the 1947 Act could be done only if such power has been given in the 1947 Act itself. There is no such power within the four corners of the 1947 Act and admittedly Lalpur police station was not created by issue of a notification in exercise of any power under the 1947 Act, If that be so, then, in my opinion, the creation of Lalpur police station under any other enactment or Government Order would not take away the operation of the 1947 Act in the local areas specified in the Schedule of that Act comprising Ranchi Kotwali police station as it stood when the
said Act came into force. Thus the conclusion is that the 1947 Act applied in the local area comprising Ranchi Kotwali police station as it was on the date it came into force till the date it expired by efflux of time i.e. 31st March, 1976, notwithstanding issue of the notification under the Code of Criminal Procedure constituting Lalpur police station. I, therefore, hold that on the date when the suit was filed, the 1947 Act being in operation, all the provisions of the 1947 Act would apply to such a pending suit. The arguments put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner noted above, therefore, have no substance and are accordingly rejected. I may state here that the impugned order has not been challenged on merits.
12. Before parting with this case, it is necessary to state that the decision in the aforesaid unreported case (Civil Revision No. 14 of 1978 (R) Bisheshwar Das v. Smt. Pratima Mukherjee) shows the suit was filed on 1-12-1976 and the 1947 Act expired on 31st March, 1976, and therefore, the new Act was in force on the date when the suit was filed (which has come into force with retrospective effect from 1-4-1976). The premises in that case lie within the local area comprising Lalpur police station in the town of Ranchi. Lalpur Police station was not included in the Schedule of the new Act and, therefore, the learned Judge rightly held that the new Act would not govern the suit for eviction filed in relation to the premises situate within the local area comprising Lalpur police station. However, from the notification dated 30-4-1980, it appears that Lalpur police station has been included in the Schedule of the new Act with retrospective effect, i. e., with effect from 1-4-1976. This notification was not factually in existence when the learned single Judge delivered the judgment on 31-8-1978, in the aforesaid unreported case. The question as to whether the delegated authority had power to apply the said notification retrospectively and whether to that extent the said notification is invalid is not a question relevant for the purpose of the decision of the present case and, therefore, I refrain from going into the said question and express no opinion on it.
13. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this revision application and it is accordingly dismissed, but in
the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.
Vishwanath Mishra, J. 14. I agree.