{"id":141436,"date":"1989-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989"},"modified":"2017-09-10T19:03:19","modified_gmt":"2017-09-10T13:33:19","slug":"kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989","title":{"rendered":"Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 SCR (2)1005, \t 1989 SCC (3) 151<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Singh, K.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKESHO RAM & CO. & ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/05\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\nKANIA, M.H.\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 SCR  (2)1005\t  1989 SCC  (3) 151\n JT 1989  Supl.\t   203\t  1989 SCALE  (1)1421\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution of India, 1950: Article 141--Court's  deci-\nsion-Binding effect of--Does not depend on whether a partic-\nular argument was considered or not.\n    East  Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949:  Sections\n3,  13 and Notification dated September 24, 1974   Constitu-\ntional\tvalidity  of-Exemption granted to new  buildings  in\nurban  area  of Chandigarh for five  years--Jurisdiction  of\nCivil Court to pass eviction decree.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellants\/petitioners\t are  tenants  of  buildings\nsituate within the Urban Territory of Chandigarh. The build-\nings  occupied\tby them as tenants were\t exempted  from\t the\noperation  of section 13 of the East Punjab Urban  Rent\t Re-\nstriction  Act\t1949 for a period of five  years  under\t the\nnotification dated September 24, 1974 issued under Section 3\nof  the Act. The landlords of these buildings had  filed  in\nthe  Civil  Court suits for eviction  against  the  tenants.\nDuring\tthe pendency of those suits, the five  years  period\nexpired.  Thereupon  the tenants raised\t objections  on\t the\nground\tthat (a) the suits could not be decreed in  view  of\nthe provisions of section 13 of the Act, which had placed an\nembargo on the landlord's right to get his tenant evicted or\nto  obtain possession of the building except  in  accordance\nwith  the provisions of section 13, and (b) the civil  court\nhad  no\t jurisdiction  to pass a decree of  eviction  or  to\nexecute the same against a tenant.\n    The\t validity  of section 3 of the Act as  well  as\t the\nvalidity of the notification dated 24th September, 1974 were\nassailed  before  this Court earlier on\t two  occasions.  In\nAmarnath Basheshat Dass v. Tek Chand,<\/a> [1972] 3 SCR 922\tthis\nCourt had upheld the notification granting exemption and had\nfurther\t held  that if the suit was  instituted\t within\t the\nperiod\tof exemption, decree could be passed even after\t the\nexpiry\tof the period of five years, and the same  could  be\nexecuted. In Punjab Tin Supply Company Chandigarh v. Central\nGovernment & Ors.,<\/a> [1984] 1 SCR 428 this Court had held that\nthe  notification  granting exemption advanced\tthe  scheme,\nobject and purposes of the Act, and It did 'not violate\t any\nof the provisions of the Act and was not discriminatory,\n1006\narbitrary or unreasonable.\n    In\tthe instant cases, another attempt has been made  to\nchallenge the validity of section 3 and the notification  on\nsome additional grounds. The submissions made by the counsel\nare:  (i)  Section  3 is unconstitutional  as  it  delegates\nessential  legislative\tfunction to the\t Central  Government\nwithout laying down any guidelines for exercise of the power\nof  exemption; (ii) the notification enlarges the period  of\nexemption  for an indefinite period, tends to amend  section\n13 of the Act, and is contrary to the object and purpose  of\nthe  Act;  rather  it defeats the protection  granted  to  a\ntenant by the Act; (iii) the notification is  discriminatory\nas it creates two class of tenants; tenants of old buildings\nwhich never enjoyed the exemption from the provisions of the\nAct,  and  the tenants of the  newly  constructed  buildings\nwhich are denied the protection of the Act.\nDismissing the appeals and the writ petitions, this Court,\n    HELD: (1) Some of the tenants in the instant cases\twere\nparties\t before\t this Court in Punjab  Tin  Supply  Company,\ncase. The petitions by such tenants are not maintainable  as\nthe same are barred by principles of res-judicata.  Finality\nin litigation and public policy both require that a litigant\nshould\tnot  be permitted to challenge the validity  of\t the\nprovisions of the Act or Notification at different times  on\ndifferent grounds. Once petitioners' challenge to section  3\nand  the notification had been considered by the  Court\t and\nthe  validity of the same upheld, it must be  presumed\tthat\nall grounds which could validly have been raised were raised\nand considered by the Court. [1015G-H; 1016A]\n    (2) The binding effect of a decision of this Court\tdoes\nnot depend upon whether a particular argument was considered\nor  not,  provided  the point with reference  to  which\t the\nargument  is advanced subsequently was actually\t decided  in\nthe earlier decision. [1016C]\n    Smt.  Somavanti & Ors. v. State of Punjab,<\/a> [1963] 2\t SCR\n774; T. Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu,<\/a>  [1973]\n1 SCC 336 and Anil Kumar Neotia v. Union of India,<\/a> [1988]  2\nSCC 587, referred to.\n    (3) On the principles of res-judicata, and also in\tview\nof Article 141 of the Constitution, the law declared by this\nCourt  in Punjab Tin Supply Company case is binding  on\t the\npetitioners. [1016E]\n(4)  Section 3 of the Act does not suffer from any  vice  Of\nconstitu-\n1007\ntional infirmity and it is a valid provision. [1017B]\n    P.J.  Irani v. State of Madras,<\/a> [1962] 2 SCR 169;  Sadhu\nSingh v. The  District Board Gurdaspur,\t C.A.  No.   2594\/66\ndecided\t on 29.10.1968 and State of Madhya Pradesh  v.\tKan-\nhaiyalal, [1970] 15 MPLJ 973, referred to.\n    (5)\t The  notification does not enlarge  the  period  of\nexemption nor it destroys the protection granted to  tenants\nunder  the  Act. Instead, it safeguards the  rights  of\t the\nparties which crystallise on the date of institution of\t the\nsuit. [1019B]\n    (6)\t Once  the  landlord institutes a  suit\t before\t the\nexpiry of the period of exemption, the decree even if passed\nafter  the period of five years will not be subject  to\t the\nprovisions  of\tsection 13 of the Act, and the\tcivil  court\nwill have jurisdiction to pass decree even after the  expiry\nof the period of exemption and to execute the same  notwith-\nstanding the provisions of section 13 of the Act in view  of\nthe  Notification dated September 24, 1974.  [1018H;  1019A;\n1022F]\n    Vineet  Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera,<\/a> [1984] 3 SCC\t352;\nShiv  Kumar v. Jawahar Lal Verma,<\/a> [1988] 4 SCC 763; Om\tPra-\nkash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta,<\/a> [1982] 3 SCR 491;\tNand\nKishore\t Marwah v. Smt. Samundri Devi,<\/a> [1987] 4 SCC 382\t and\nAtma  Ram  Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punja,<\/a> [1988] 4  SCC\t284,\nreferred to.\n    (7) While considering the interpretation and validity of\nthe  provisions\t granting  exemption,  either  by  statutory\nprovision  made in the Act or by notification  issued  under\nthe  Act,  it is necessary to bear in mind  the\t object\t and\npurpose\t of exemption. The paramount object and\t purpose  of\nexemption  is to provide incentive for construction  of\t new\nbuildings, to meet the shortage of accommodation which would\nultimately result in benefitting the tenants. The  notifica-\ntion  granting exemption is, therefore, not contrary to\t the\nobject and purpose of the Act. ]1018A-B]\n    (8)\t The  shackles of the rent control  legislation\t had\nchilling effect on the landlords and they were reluctant  to\ninvest their capital in making new constructions. By  grant-\ning  holiday  from the restrictions of regulations  of\trent\ncontrol\t laws,\timpetus was given to the landlords  to\tcon-\nstruct\tnew buildings so that after the expiry of period  of\nexemption  the\tbuilding so constructed\t are  available\t for\nneedy tenants controlled by the Act. [1019E-F]\n1008\n    (9) Section 3 which provides for granting exemption from\nthe  provisions\t of  the Act is by way of  an  exception  to\nsection\t 13  and therefore the two provisions  need  not  be\nconsistent  in their effect. The object of having a  proviso\nor exemption is to neutralise the effect of the main  provi-\nsion.  If that is not so, it would not be necessary to\thave\nan  exemption. Public purpose as well as larger interest  of\ntenants require availability of more and more  accommodation\nin  the shape of new buildings, and for that purpose  exemp-\ntion  is  necessary  to be provided.  In  ultimate  analysis\nprovisions of section 3 and 13 both seem to achieve the same\nresult. [1019B-D]\n    (10) It is a settled rule of harmonious construction  of\nstatutes that a construction which would advance the  object\nand  purpose  of the legislation should be  followed  and  a\nconstruction  which would result in reducing a provision  of\nthe  Act to a dead letter or to defeat the object' and\tpur-\npose  of  the statute should be avoided\t without  doing\t any\nviolence to the language. [1020F-G]\n    (11)  Classification of buildings with reference to\t the\ndate  of completion for the purpose of regulating  the\trent\nand  eviction of tenants from such buildings has a  rational\nbasis and has a clear nexus with the object to be  achieved.\nClassification is rounded on intelligible differentia  which\nhas a rational nexus with the object of the Act. [1022C]\n    Mohinder  Kumar v. State of Haryana,<\/a> [1985] 4  SCC\t221,\nfollowed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE AND ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONS: Civil Appeal
\nNos. 342 1,264-65, 4540 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.84,\t 4.1.84\t and
\n17.10.84 of the Punjab and. Haryana High Court in Civil Writ
\nPetition Nos. 3672, 31 and 4723 of 1984 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  WITH
\n    Writ  Petition  Nos. 5286\/85,  13264-86\/83,\t 1118-20\/84,
\n12274, 14151-53, 13744, 16123, 17296, 16907-08, 17306,\t113-
\n14, 2747, 1180304, 10229-35, 12905, 12837, 5328-29\/85,\t620,
\n482\/86,\t 37-55\/84,  261, 328, 181, 11972,  12574,  11200-05,
\n17534,\t475-83,\t 11233-34, 11270-73\/ 84,  9597\/83,  5864\/85,
\n107,   109-21\/84,  2599-93,  3239-41\/85\t and   C.M.P.\tNos.
\n17551\/87, W.P. Nos. 1276\/87, 2584\/85, 1490\/86, SLP (C)\tNos.
\n7794\/83 and CMP No. 10886\/88 in (W.P. No. 1490\/86), W.P. No.
\n1009<\/span>
\n937\/88, with W.P. No. 388 of 87, 1212\/87 and 1487\/87.)
\n(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
\n    R.P.  Bhat,\t V.M. Tarkunde, S.D. Sharma,  A.K.  Ganguli,
\nKapil  Sibbal, K.G. Bhagat, Ms. Sudha Sharma, Ms. Asha\tRani
\nMadan, Mahabir Singh, M.P. Jha, S.K. Jain, A.K. Goel, Nandi-
\nni  Gore,  H.K. Puri, Manoj-Swarup, Sushil  K.\tJain,  Rishi
\nKesh,  Dvender\tN.  Verrna, P.C. Kapur,\t B.B.  Swhney,\tN.A.
\nSiddiqui,  K.K. Gupta, Parveen Kumar, Arvind  Minocha,\tHar-
\njinder\tSingh, S.M. Ashri, C.M. Nayar, R.K. Talwar, S.\tMar-
\nkandeya,  M.C.\tDhingra,  E.M.S. Anam,\tVishal\tMalik,\tB.B.
\nTawakley, M.M. Kashyap, Jitender Kumar Sharma, Randhir Jain,
\nA.D.  Sikri,  Jitender Sharma, D.D. Gupta, P.N.\t Puri,\tR.K.
\nKapur, R.P. Jugga, R.C. Setia, Mrs. M. Karanjawala, N.S. Das
\nBehal,\tPrem  Malhotra, Mrs. Urmila Kapur, N.D.\t Garg,\tB.S.
\nShant,\tJ.D.  Jam, H. Wahi, S.K. Jain, D.M.  Nargolka,\tMrs.
\nKawaljit  Kochar,  Prem Malhotra, R.K. Handa,  K.K.  Lahiri,
\nPankaj Kalra, A.K. Sanghi, Mahabir Singh, Mrs. H. Wahi, K.K.
\nMohan and P.N. Puri for the appearing parties.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SINGH, J. In this batch of Civil Appeals, Special  Leave
\nPetitions  and Writ Petitions, under Article 32 of the\tCon-
\nstitution,  Validity of Section 3 of the East  Punjab  Urban
\nRent  Restriction  Act 1949 and the Notification  No.  3205-
\nLD74\/3614 dated September 24, 1974 issued thereunder by\t the
\nChief Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh,  granting
\nexemption from Section 13 of the Act to buildings construct-
\ned  in\tthe urban area of Chandigarh for a  period  of\tfive
\nyears have been challenged.\n<\/p>\n
    The appellants in the appeals as well as the petitioners
\nin  the Special Leave Petitions and Petitions under  Article
\n32  of\tthe Constitution, are tenants of  buildings  situate
\nwithin\tthe  Urban Territory of\t Chandigarh.  The  buildings
\noccupied  by  the  appellants\/petitioners  as  tenants\twere
\nexempted  from the operation of the East Punjab\t Urban\tRent
\nRestriction  Act 1949 (hereinafter referred to as  the\tAct)
\nfor  a period of five years under the impugned\tNotification
\ndated  24.9.1974.  The landlords of  these  buildings  filed
\nsuits for eviction in the Civil Court, against the  tenants.
\nDuring\tthe  pendency of suits five  years  period  expired,
\nthereupon, the tenants raised objection that the suits could
\nnot  be decreed in view of the provisions of Section  13  of
\nthe  Act.  Some of the tenants filed  writ  petitions  under
\nArticle 226 of the Con-\n<\/p>\n
1010<\/span><\/p>\n
stitution before the High Court challenging the jurisdiction
\nof  the\t civil court to proceed with the suits\tor  to\tpass
\ndecree of eviction against them on the ground that on expiry
\nof  five  years period of exemption Section 13\tof  the\t Act
\nbecame applicable and the civil court ceased to have  juris-
\ndiction.  The High Court repelled the  tenants’\t contentions
\nand  dismissed\ttheir  petitions. The  tenants\tfiled  Civil
\nAppeals,  Special Leave Petitions in this Court\t challenging
\nthe correctness of the order of the High Court. Some of\t the
\ntenants against whom suit is pending before the trial  court
\napproached this Court by means of petitions under Article 32
\nof the Constitution challenging the validity of the proceed-
\nings  taken by the landlords for their eviction.  Since\t all
\nthese  cases  involve common questions the  same  are  being
\ndisposed of by a common order.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949  seeks
\nto  regulate and restrict the increase of rent\tof  premises
\nsituate\t within the urban areas and the eviction of  tenants
\ntherefrom.  No\tlandlord of a building situate in  an  urban
\narea  to  which the provisions of the Act apply is  free  to
\ncharge rent from the tenants according to his sweet will, or
\nto evict a tenant by filing suit by terminating tenancy,  in
\nview  of the provisions of the Act placing  restrictions  on
\nthe  landlord’s rights. The provisions of the Act  were\t ap-
\nplied and extended to the urban area of the Union  Territory
\nof  Chandigarh\tby the East Punjab  Urban  Rent\t Restriction
\n(Extension  to Chandigarh) Act 1974. On such  extension\t all
\nbuildings  situate in the urban area of\t Chandigarh,  became
\nsubject\t to the provisions of the said Act, with the  result
\nlandlords’ right to charge rent or to evict tenants at their
\nsweet  will are curtailed and regulated in  accordance\twith
\nthe  provisions\t of the Act. The object of the\tEast  Punjab
\nUrban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is to provide safeguards to
\ntenants\t against exploitation by landlords who seek to\ttake
\nundue advantage of the pressing need for accommodation.\t The
\nprovisions of the Act provide for fixation of fair rent\t and
\nprevention  of unreasonable eviction of tenants. Sections  4
\nto 9 provide for fixation of rent, its recovery, enhancement
\nand  other allied matters relating to rent. Section  10\t en-
\njoins  the  landlords not to interfere\twith  the  amenities
\nenjoyed by the tenants. Section 11 prohibits conversion of a
\nresidential building into a non-residential building  except
\nwith  the  written permission of  the  Controller  appointed
\nunder the Act. Section 12 mandates a landlord to make neces-
\nsary repairs in the building let out to a tenant, and on his
\nfailure, it is open to the tenant to carry out repairs\twith
\nthe permission of the Controller and the cost thereof may be
\ndeducted  from the rent payable to the landlord. Section  13
\nplaces an embargo on the landlord’s right to get his  tenant
\nevicted or to
\n1011<\/span>
\nobtain\tpossession of the building. No decree  for  eviction
\nagainst\t a tenant can be executed except in accordance\twith
\nthe provisions of the Section. A landlord seeking to evict a
\ntenant\tis  required to apply to  the  Controller  appointed
\nunder the Act, and if the Controller after giving opportuni-
\nty  to the tenant is satisfied that the grounds set  out  in
\nSection\t 13(2) and (3) are made out, he may make  order\t di-
\nrecting the tenant to put the landlord in possession of\t the
\nbuilding.  The\tremaining provisions of the  Act  deal\twith
\nappeals, revisions, and State Government’s powers to appoint
\nAppellate  Authority  and other allied\tmatters.  Under\t the
\nscheme\tof the Act a tenant of a building in urban  area  to
\nwhich  the  Act applies, cannot be evicted from\t the  rented
\nbuilding or land except in accordance with the provisions of
\nSection\t 13 of the Act and the civil court has no  jurisdic-
\ntion  to  pass a decree of eviction or to execute  the\tsame
\nagainst a tenant.\n<\/p>\n
    Section  3\tof the Act as amended by the  Extension\t Act
\n1974 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3. The Central Government may direct that all
\n\t      or any of the provisions of this Act shall not
\n\t      apply  to\t any particular building  or  rented
\n\t      land  or\tany  class of  buildings  or  rented
\n\t      lands.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Chief  Commissioner of Union  Territory  of  Chandigarh
\nexercising  powers  of the Central  Government\tpublished  a
\nNotification  dated  January 31,  1973\texempting  buildings
\nreferred to therein from the operation of the Act. It  reads
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “No. 352-LD-73\/602 dated January 31, 1973.–1n
\n\t      exercise of the powers conferred by Section  3
\n\t      of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,
\n\t      1949 (Punjab Act No. III of 1949), as applica-
\n\t      ble to the Union Territory of Chandigarh,\t the
\n\t      Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, is pleased  to
\n\t      direct  that  the provisions of the  said\t Act
\n\t      shall  not apply to buildings, constructed  in
\n\t      the urban area of Chandigarh, for a period  of
\n\t      five years with effect from the date of sewer-
\n\t      age  connection is granted in respect of\tsuch
\n\t      buildings\t by  the competent  authority  under
\n\t      rule  112 of the Punjab  Capital\t(D
\n\t      evelopment  and  Regulation)  Building  Rules,
\n\t      1952.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t aforesaid  Notification  was  followed\t by  another
\nNotification  dated September 24, 1973 issued by  the  Chief
\nCommissioner, Chandigarh, setting out the manner and  method
\nfor computing period
\n1012<\/span>
\nof  five years of exemption, granted to the  buildings\tcon-
\nstructed in the urban areas of Chandigarh. On September\t 24,
\n1974,  the Chief Commissioner, issued another  Notification,
\nwhich reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “No. 3205-LD-74\/3614.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
\n\t      3\t of the East Punjab Urban  Rent\t Restriction
\n\t      Act, 1949 as applicable to the Union Territory
\n\t      of Chandigarh, the Chief Commissioner, Chandi-
\n\t      garh, is pleased to direct that the provisions
\n\t      of Section 13 of the said Act shall not  apply
\n\t      to buildings, exempted from the provisions  of
\n\t      the Act for a period of five years vide Chand-
\n\t      igarh Administration Notification No.  352-LD-
\n\t      73\/602 dated the 31st January, 1973 in respect
\n\t      of decrees passed by Civil Courts in suits for
\n\t      ejectment\t of tenants in possession  of  these
\n\t      buildings instituted by the landlords  against
\n\t      such  tenants during the period  of  exemption
\n\t      whether such decrees were or are passed during
\n\t      the period of exemption or at anytime thereaf-
\n\t      ter.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The\t effect of the Notification dated January  31,\t1973
\nwas  that all newly constructed buildings in the urban\tarea
\nof Chandigarh were granted exemption from the provisions  of
\nthe  Act for a period of five years. The  Notification\talso
\nset  out the method of computing the period of\tfive  years.
\nBut  the  Notification dated 24th September,  1974  directed
\nthat the provisions of Section 13 of the Act shall not apply
\nto  buildings situate in the urban area of Chandigarh for  a
\nperiod of five years, in respect of decrees passed by  civil
\ncourts in suits for ejectment of tenants, instituted  during
\nthe  period of exemption notwithstanding the fact that\tsuch
\ndecrees are passed during the period of exemption or at\t any
\ntime  thereafter.  The effect of the  Notification  is\tthat
\nprotection granted to tenants against eviction under Section
\n13 of the Act is not available to them for a period of\tfive
\nyears  and  if the landlord institutes a suit  for  eviction
\nagainst\t the  tenant  within the aforesaid  period  of\tfive
\nyears,\tthe restrictions contained in Section 13 of the\t Act
\nshall not apply to such suits and the civil court has juris-
\ndiction to pass decree of eviction and to execute the  same,
\neven  though five years period of exemption  expired  during
\nthe pendency of the suit. The tenants have assailed validity
\nof  Section  3\tof  the\t Act  and  the\tNotification   dated
\n24.9.1974.\n<\/p>\n
    This  is  the  third round of  litigation  initiated  by
\ntenants\t in challenging Section 3 of the East  Punjab  Urban
\nRent Restriction Act 1949
\n1013<\/span>
\nand  Notifications  issued  thereunder for  the\t purpose  of
\ngranting exemption to the newly constructed buildings in the
\nurban areas for a period of five years from the operation of
\nthe provisions of the Act. In Amarnath Basheshar Dass v. Tek
\nChand,<\/a>\t[1972] 3 SCR 922 this Court considered the  validity
\nof  Notification dated 30.7.1965 issued in exercise  of\t the
\npower  conferred under Section 3 of the Act granting  exemp-
\ntion  to buildings constructed during the years 1959,  1960,
\n1961, 1962 and 1963 from all the provisions of the Act for a
\nperiod\tof five years, and the provisions of Section  13  of
\nthe  Act were not to apply in respect of decrees for  eject-
\nment of tenants in possession of buildings provided the suit
\nwas  instituted in civil court by the landlord\tagainst\t the
\ntenant during the period of exemption. This Court upheld the
\nNotification granting exemption and it further held that  if
\nthe  suit  was instituted within the  period  of  exemption,
\ndecree\tcould be passed even after the expiry of the  period
\nof  five years, and the same could be executed.\t The  second
\nround  of  litigation came up to this Court  in\t Punjab\t Tin
\nSupply Company Chandigarh etc. v. Central Government & Ors.,
\n[1984] 1 SCR 428 where the validity of Section 3 of the\t Act
\nas  well as the validity of the impugned  Notification\tdate
\n24th September 1974 were assailed on a number of grounds. On
\nan  elaborate discussion this Court upheld the\tvalidity  of
\nSection\t 3  of the Act and the\timpugned  Notification.\t The
\nCourt held that the Notification granting exemption advanced
\nthe  scheme, object and purposes of the Act and it  did\t not
\nviolate\t any  of the provisions of the Act and\tit  was\t not
\ndiscriminatory,\t arbitrary or unreasonable. In\tthe  instant
\ncases, another attempt has been made to challenge the valid-
\nity of Section 3 and the Notification dated 24.9. 1974. Most
\nof the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the  appel-
\nlants  and petitioners are the same which have already\tbeen
\nconsidered and rejected by this Court in the aforesaid cases
\nbut  learned counsel made attempts to raise some  additional
\nsubmissions in assailing the validity of the Notification to
\nwhich we shall refer at the appropriate stage.
\n    Sh. Tarkunde and other counsel appearing for the tenants
\nin the instant cases made several submissions in challenging
\nthe validity of Section 3 of the Act and Notification  dated
\n24th  September,  1974. When the earlier  decision  of\tthis
\nCourt  in  Punjab  Tin Supply  Company’s  case\t(supra)\t was
\nbrought\t to  their notice where\t the  impugned\tNotification
\nitself\thad  been held valid, the learned  counsel  made  an
\neffort\tto  challenge the validity of  the  Notification  on
\nadditional  grounds. These submissions are directed  against
\nthe  second part of the impugned Notification which  states;
\nwhether such decrees were or are passed during the period of
\nexemption or “at any time thereafter”\n<\/p>\n
1014<\/span><\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied). They urged that the Notification grant-
\ned exemption to newly constructed buildings from the  opera-
\ntion of Section 13 of the Act for a period of five years but
\nthe  second part of the Notification as extracted, and\tpar-
\nticularly  the expression “at any time thereafter”  enlarged
\nthe exemption for an indefinite period and it tends to amend
\nSection\t 13  of the Act not permissible under the  law.\t The
\nsubmissions  made  by  the counsels are: (i)  Section  3  is
\nunconstitutional  as  it  delegates  essential\t legislative
\nfunction  to the Central Government without laying down\t any
\nguidelines for exercise of the power of exemption; (ii)\t the
\nimpugned  Notification enlarges the period of exemption\t for
\nan indefinite period and it tends to amend Section 13 of the
\nAct, and it is contrary to the object and purpose of the Act
\nrather it defeats the protection granted to a tenant by\t the
\nAct, (iii) the Notification is discriminatory as it  creates
\ntwo  class of tenants; tenants of old buildings which  never
\nenjoyed the exemption from the provisions of the Act and the
\ntenants of the newly constructed buildings which are  denied
\nthe protection of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Some  of the learned counsels appearing for the  tenants
\nsubmitted that we should refer these cases to a Constitution
\nBench  in  view of the observations made by  a\tthree-Judges
\nBench of this Court in Narendra Kurnar Sharma’s case (Naren-
\ndra  Kumar  Sharma v. Srnt. Kailashwati, C.A.  No.  3994  of
\n1982).\tWhile granting leave a Bench of three-Judges  passed
\nthe following order on November 9, 1983:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “After  hearing the counsel for both the\tpar-
\n\t      ties  at some length, it seems to us that\t the
\n\t      correctness  of  the decisions in\t Firms\tAmar
\n\t      Nath  Bashesh Das v. Tek Chand,<\/a> [1972]  3\t SCR
\n\t      922,  is\topen to doubt. It appears  that\t the
\n\t      interpretation  placed by the Court as to\t the
\n\t      scope and effect of the exemption in Section 3
\n\t      of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,
\n\t      1949, which is pari-materia with Section 3  of
\n\t      the  East Punjab Urban Rent  Restriction\tAct,
\n\t      1949,  (as extended to the Union Territory  of
\n\t      Chandigarh)  with\t which we are  concerned  in
\n\t      this  appeal, requires reconsideration. We  do
\n\t      feel  that  the second part  of  the  impugned
\n\t      notification issued by the Chief Commissioner,
\n\t      Chandigarh  dated\t September 24,\t1974,  under
\n\t      Section  3 of the Act, in effect, permits\t the
\n\t      Civil  Courts  to pass decrees  in  suits\t for
\n\t      ejectment\t of tenants instituted by the  land-
\n\t      lords  even after the expiry of the period  of
\n\t      exemption,  contrary  to\tthe  statutory\t bar
\n\t      contained in Section 13 of the Act and  there-
\n\t      fore it could not be upheld.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1015<\/span><\/p>\n
      Let  the papers be laid before Hon’ble the Chief\tJus-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
tice of India for placing the matter before a larger Bench.”
\nOn 23rd April, 1986, Bhagwati, C.J. (as he then was) presid-
\ning  over  a  three-Judges Bench held that  reference  to  a
\nlarger\tBench was only in respect of suits for ejectment  of
\ntenants\t instituted  by the landlords after  the  expiry  of
\nperiod\tof exemption and it did not cover cases where  suits
\nwere instituted by the landlords prior to the expiry of\t the
\nperiod of exemption although decrees were passed  subsequent
\nto  the\t period of exemption. In this  view  Narendra  Kumar
\nSharma’s  case wherein suit had been instituted\t during\t the
\nperiod\tof  exemption  was not referred\t to  a\tConstitution
\nBench. Another Bench consisting of Hon’ble Khalid and  Hon’-
\nble Dutt, JJ. took the same view and directed that the\tcase
\nof  Narender  Kumar Sharma is not covered by  the  order  of
\nreference.\n<\/p>\n
    Ultimately, Narendra Kumar Sharma’s case was heard by  a
\nBench  of  two\tJudges consisting of  Hon’ble  Mukharji\t and
\nHon’ble\t K.J. Shetty, JJ. and it was dismissed on merits  on
\nSeptember  24, 1987. It appears that during the pendency  of
\nNarendra  Kumar Sharma’s case the tenants encouraged by\t the
\nobservations  made in the order dated  9.11.1983  approached
\nthis Court again to challenge the validity of the  Notifica-
\ntion  by  means of the present batch of\t petitions.  In\t our
\nview, observations made in Narendra Kumar Sharma’s case by a
\nBench  of three-Judges do not pertain to suits filed by\t the
\nlandlords during the period of exemption although decree may
\nhave  been  passed  after the expiry of\t exemption.  In\t the
\ninstant\t cases\tnone of the cases fall into  that  category,
\nthere  is  therefore no justification  for  referring  these
\ncases to a larger Bench.\n<\/p>\n
    Before we consider the submissions made on behalf of the
\ntenants we would like to point out that some of the  tenants
\nwho were unsucessful before this court in Punjab Tin  Supply
\nCompany’s  case, have again filed petitions challenging\t the
\nvalidity  of  Section  3 and the  impugned  Notification  on
\nadditional  grounds.  In our opinion the petitions  by\tsuch
\ntenants\t are  not  maintainable as the same  are  barred  by
\nprinciples of res-judicata. Once the petitioners  challenged
\nthe validity of the impugned Notification dated 24.9.1974 in
\nearlier\t proceedings  they  ought to  have  raised  all\t the
\ngrounds which could have been raised in impugning the valid-
\nity  of\t Section 3 and the Notification, if they  failed  to
\nraise  a ground in earlier petition they cannot\t raise\tthat
\nground\tnow in the present proceedings. Finality in  litiga-
\ntion  and public policy both require that a litigant  should
\nnot be permitted to challenge validity of
\n1016<\/span>
\nthe provisions of the Act or Notification at different times
\non different grounds. Once petitioners challenge to  Section
\n3 and the impugned Notification was considered by the  Court
\nand the validity of the same was upheld it must be  presumed
\nthat  all grounds which could validly be raised were  raised
\nand  considered by the Court. Learned counsel for the  peti-
\ntioners\t urged that the questions which are being raised  in
\nthe  present proceedings were neither raised nor  considered
\nby this Court in Punjab Tin Supply Company’s case, therefore
\nit is open to them to question the validity of Section 3 and
\nthe  Notification dated 24.9.1974. This submission  is\tcon-
\ntrary  to  the\tprinciples of res judicata  and\t it  further
\nignores the binding effect of a decision of this Court under
\nArticle\t 141  of the Constitution. The binding effect  of  a
\ndecision  of this Court does not depend upon whether a\tpar-
\nticular\t argument was considered or not, provided the  point
\nwith  reference\t to which the argument\tis  advanced  subse-
\nquentiy\t was actually decided in the earlier  decision,\t See
\nSmt. Somavanti and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.,<\/a> [1963]  2
\nSCR 774; T. Govindaraja Mudaliar etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu
\n&  Ors., [1973] 1 SCC 336 and Anil Kumar Neotia and Ors.  v.
\nUnion  of India & Others,<\/a> [1988] 2 SCC 587. It is  therefore
\nno  longer open to the petitioner-tenants to  challenge\t the
\nvalidity of Section 3 of the Act and the impugned  Notifica-
\ntion dated 24.9.1974 on the ground that some points had\t not
\nbeen  urged  or considered in Punjab  Tin  Supply  Company’s
\ncase. On the principles of res judicata, and also in view of
\nArticle\t 141 of the Constitution, the law declared  by\tthis
\nCourt in Punjab Tin Supply Company’s case is binding on\t the
\npetitioners.  But  even otherwise the  submissions  made  on
\ntheir behalf in impugning the validity of Section 3 and\t the
\nNotification  dated 24.9.1974 are devoid of any merit as  we
\nshall presently discuss the same.\n<\/p>\n
    The challenge to the validity of Section 3 of the Act on
\nthe ground that it suffers from the vice of excessive  dele-
\ngation of legislative power need not detain us long in\tview
\nof  a number of decisions of this Court.  Similar  provision
\ncontained  in Section 13 of the Madras Buildings (Lease\t and
\nRent Control) Act 1949 was upheld by a Constitution Bench of
\nthis  Court in P.J. Irani v. The State of Madras,<\/a>  [1962]  2
\nSCR  169. In Sadhu Singh v. The District Board, Gurdaspur  &
\nAnr.,  C.A.  2594\/66 (decided on 29th  October,\t 1968)\tthis
\nCourt  held  that Section 3 of the East\t Punjab\t Urban\tRent
\nRestriction Act 1949 does not suffer from the vice of exces-
\nsive delegation of legislative power nor it violates Article
\n14  of the Constitution. Section 3(2) of the Madhya  Pradesh
\nAccommodation  Control\tAct  1961 Conferring  power  on\t the
\nGovernment to exempt certain accommodations from all Or\t any
\nof  the\t provisions of the Act was upheld in  the  State  of
\nMadhya Pradesh v.\n<\/p>\n
1017<\/span><\/p>\n
Kanhaiyalal,  [1978]  (15)  MPLJ 973. In  fact\tvalidity  of
\nSection 3 of the Act was again upheld by this Court, holding
\nthat  it does not suffer from the vice of excessive  delega-
\ntion of legislative power in M\/s Punjab Tin Supply Company’s
\ncase  (supra).\tWe find no good reason to take\ta  different
\nview;  we therefore hold that Section 3 of the Act does\t not
\nsuffer\tfrom  vice of constitutional infirmity and it  is  a
\nvalid provision.\n<\/p>\n
    As\tregards\t the validity of the  impugned\tNotification
\ndated 24.9.1974 is concerned, it is necessary to examine the
\nobject and purpose of the exemption granted by the Notifica-
\ntion.  The paramount object of the Act, like and other\trent
\ncontrol legislations is to safeguard the interest of tenants
\nagainst\t their exploitation by landlords. After\t the  Second
\nWorld  War there has been movement of population from  rural
\nareas  to  urban areas as a result of which the\t problem  of
\naccommodation  became  acute  in cities.  Landlords  of\t the
\nbuildings  took\t full advantage of the\tsituation  and\tthey
\ncharged exhorbitant rent from tenants and very often evicted
\nthem by terminating tenancy under the provisions of Transfer
\nof Property Act. The tenants were helpless as the suits once
\nfiled  by  the landlord after terminating the  tenancy\twere
\nbound  to succeed. The Legislature of different States\ttook
\ncognizance of the situation and enacted rent control  legis-
\nlations providing safeguards for tenants by making provision
\nfor  fixation of reasonable rent and also  placing  restric-
\ntions  on the landlords’ right to evict\t tenants.  Generally
\nthe  rent control legislation of various States exclude\t the
\njurisdiction  of civil courts to entertain a suit or pass  a
\ndecree\tof eviction against a tenant; instead the  jurisdic-
\ntion  to evict a tenant is conferred on Rent  Controller  or
\nsome  designated  authority and the  statutory\tgrounds\t for
\neviction  of  a\t tenant have been laid\tdown.  The  multiple
\nrestrictions  placed on the landlords’ right to charge\trent
\nfrom  tenants or to evict them from buildings resulted\tinto
\nshortage  of accommodation because those who had  money\t and
\ncapacity to build new houses were discouraged from investing
\nmoney  in constructing buildings on account of the  restric-
\ntions  placed by rent control legislations. The\t Legislature
\nstepped\t in, to meet the situation, in making provision\t for
\ngranting  exemption to newly constructed buildings for\tcer-
\ntain number of years from the operation of the\trestrictions
\nof the rent control legislations. These steps were taken  to
\nmeet  the acute scarcity of accommodation and  to  encourage
\nlandlords to construct buildings which would ultimately ease
\nthe  situation of shortage of accommodation to a  large\t ex-
\ntent. Provisions for exempting the newly constructed  build-
\nings from the restrictions of the rent control\tlegislations
\nfor a limited period have been enacted by the Punjab, Uttar
\n1018<\/span>
\nPradesh,  Haryana  and\tMadhya\tPradesh\t legislature.  While
\nconsidering  the interpretation and validity of\t the  provi-
\nsions granting exemption, either by statutory provision made
\nin the Act or by a Notification issued under the Act, it  is
\nnecessary  to bear in mind the object and purpose of  exemp-
\ntion  to newly constructed buildings. The  paramount  object
\nand  purpose of exemption is to provide incentive  for\tcon-
\nstruction of new buildings, to meet the shortage of accommo-
\ndation\twhich  would ultimately result\tin  benefitting\t the
\ntenants.\n<\/p>\n
    Learned  counsel  urged that the  impugned\tNotification
\nenlarged  the period of exemption for an  indefinite  period
\nand  it tends to amend Section 13 of the Act and it is\tcon-
\ntrary  to the object and purpose of the Act. Developing\t the
\nargument  it  was submitted that  the  Notification  granted
\nexemption  to newly constructed buildings in the urban\tarea
\nof  Chandigarh\tfor  a period of five years  only  from\t the
\noperation of Section 13 of the Act, therefore, no  exemption
\ncould be available to newly constructed buildings after\t the
\nexpiry of five years. A suit if instituted during the period
\nof exemption could not be decreed, nor such decree could  be
\nexecuted after the expiry of five years period but the\tlast
\nportion of the Notification which states that Section 13  of
\nthe  Act shall not apply to decree of civil  courts  whether
\nsuch decree was passed during the period of exemption or “at
\nany time thereafter” enlarged the period of exemption for an
\nindefinite period of time, and it seeks to amend Section  13
\nof  the\t Act.  We do not find merit in\tthe  submission.  As
\nnoticed earlier Section 13(1) imposes a complete ban against
\nthe eviction of a tenant in execution of a decree passed  by
\na  civil court before or after the commencement of  the\t Act
\nand  it further lays down that a tenant in possession  of  a
\nbuilding  or  rented  land shall not be\t evicted  except  in
\naccordance  with  the provisions of Section 13 or  an  order
\nmade  in pursuance of the provisions of the Act.  SubSection
\n(2)  of Section 13 sets out statutory grounds on  which\t the
\nController, an authority constituted under the Act has power
\nto pass order of eviction against a tenant. Section 13 takes
\naway  the  jurisdiction of civil court to pass a  decree  of
\neviction or execution thereof against a tenant in respect of
\na  building which is subject to the provisions of  the\tAct.
\nThe  impugned  Notification grants immunity  to\t newly\tcon-
\nstructed  buildings from the shackles of Section 13  of\t the
\nAct for a period of five years. While doing so, the  Notifi-
\ncation\thas  taken care to make the exemption  effective  by
\nproviding  that\t the  exemption shall be  available  to\t the
\nbuilding  even if the decree is passed after the  expiry  of
\nthe  period  of five years provided the suit  is  instituted
\nduring\tthe  period  of exemption. The emphasis\t is  on\t the
\ninstitution  of the suit within the period of  exemption  of
\nfive years. Once the landlord institutes a suit
\n1019<\/span>
\nbefore\tthe  expiry of the period of exemption,\t the  decree
\neven  if passed after the period of five years will  not  be
\nsubject to the provisions of Section 13 of the Act. This  is
\nthe true meaning of the Notification. The Notification\tdoes
\nnot  enlarge the period of exemption instead  it  safeguards
\nthe  rights of the parties which crystallise on the date  of
\ninstitution of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 3 which provides for granting exemption from the
\nprovisions  of the Act is by way of an exception to  Section
\n13  and therefore the two provisions need not be  consistent
\nin their effect. The object of having a proviso or exemption
\nis  to neutralise the effect of the main provision. If\tthat
\nis  not\t so it would not be necessary to have  an  exemption
\nsince  public purpose as well as larger interest of  tenants
\nrequire\t availability of more and more accommodation in\t the
\nshape’\tof new buildings, and for that purpose exemption  is
\nnecessary to be provided. In ultimate analysis provisions of
\nSections 3 and 13 both seem to achieve the same result.\t The
\nsubmission that the Notification granting exemption to newly
\nconstructed buildings is contrary to the object and  purpose
\nof  the Act ignores the resultant effect of  exemption.\t The
\nobject\tand  policy of the Act is to  mitigate\thardship  of
\ntenants.  This can be done in several ways and one  of\tthem
\nbeing  to provide incentive to persons having  resources  to
\ninvest\tmoney in the construction of new buildings. As\tdis-
\ncussed,\t the  shackles of the rent control  legislation\t had
\nchilling effect on the landlords and they were reluctant  to
\ninvest their capital in making new constructions. By  grant-
\ning  holiday  from the restrictions of regulations  of\trent
\ncontrol\t laws,\timpetus was given to the landlords  to\tcon-
\nstruct\tnew buildings so that after the expiry of period  of
\nexemption  the\tbuilding so constructed\t are  available\t for
\nneedy  tenants controlled by the Act. In Punjab\t Tin  Supply
\nCompany’s case (supra) similar argument raised on behalf  of
\nthe tenants was repelled and the Court held that the Notifi-
\ncation granting exemption was not contrary to the object and
\npurpose of the Act instead it advanced the ultimate  purpose
\nof the Act to provide accommodation to tenants. Similarly in
\nMohinder Kumar etc. v. State of Haryana & Anr., [1985] 4 SCC
\n221  provisions\t of the Haryana Act  granting  exemption  to
\nnewly  constructed buildings for a period of ten  years\t was
\nheld to advance the purpose of rent control legislation.  In
\nour opinion the impugned Notification granting exemption  is
\nnot  contrary  to the object and purpose of the Act  nor  it
\ndestroys  protection granted to tenants under the  Act.\t The
\nexemption  is for a limited period and after the  expiry  of
\nthe  period of exemption the building would fall within\t the
\npurview\t of the Act and it would be regulated by the  provi-
\nsions  contained therein, subject to the impugned  notifica-
\ntion.\n<\/p>\n
1020<\/span><\/p>\n
    In\tAmar Nath’s case (supra) the  Notification  granting
\nexemption  did not direct that the decree passed  after\t the
\nexpiry\tof period of exemption would also be  exempted\tfrom
\nthe operation of Section 13 of the Act. In that case similar
\nargument  was raised that not only the suit should be  filed
\nduring\tthe period of exemption but the decree\tof  eviction
\nmust also be obtained within the period of five years.\tThis
\nCourt rejected the submission saying that the contention  on
\nthe  very face of it, if accepted would lead to\t incongruity
\nand shall nullify the purpose for which exemption was grant-
\ned.  The  Court held that while considering the\t purpose  of
\nexemption  of  building from operation of  Section  13,\t the
\nNotification  granting exemption must be interpreted in\t the
\nlight  of  the object and purpose of exemption\tand  if\t the
\ncontention  that  both\tthe suit and the  decree  should  be
\npassed within the period of exemption is accepted that would
\ndefeat and nullify the purpose of exemption. It is a  matter
\nof common knowledge that final disposal of suits before\t the
\ncivil  court  are time consuming in view of the\t heavy\twork
\nload of cases and dilatory tactics adopted by the interested
\nparty. Having regard to time normally consumed for adjudica-
\ntion of a suit by the civil court, it is too much to  expect
\nthat  a\t suit filed within the period of exemption  of\tfive
\nyears can be disposed of finally within the period of exemp-
\ntion. The exemption contemplated by the Notification permits
\nthe  institution  of a suit within the period  of  exemption
\ntaking\tinto  account the delay caused in  disposal  Of\t the
\nsuit,  it  further protects the jurisdiction  of  the  civil
\ncourt in passing decree of eviction with a view to make\t the
\nexemption  effective  and meaningful. In this  view  if\t the
\nsubmission  made  on behalf of the tenants  is\taccepted  it
\nwould render the exemption illusory, as in reality, it\twill
\nbe impossible for a landlord to get the suit decreed  within
\nthe  period  of\t exemption even if he  instituted  the\tsuit
\nwithin\tthe period of exemption. Interpretation of  the\t Act
\nand the impugned notification as suggested on behalf of\t the
\ntenants if accepted would defeat the purpose of the  benefi-
\ncial social legislation. It is a settled rule of  harmonious
\nconstruction  of  statute that a  construction\twhich  would
\nadvance the object and purpose of the legislation should  be
\nfollowed and a construction which would result in reducing a
\nprovision  of  the  Act to a dead letter or  to\t defeat\t the
\nobject and purpose of the statute should be avoided  without
\ndoing any violence to the language. We therefore reject\t the
\nsubmission made on behalf of tenants.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel for the tenants placed reliance on\t the
\ndecisions  of  this  Court in Vineet Kumar  v.\tMangal\tSain
\nWadhera,<\/a>  [1984]  3 SCC 352 and Shiv Kumar  v.\tJawahar\t Lal
\nVerma,<\/a> [1988] 4 SCC 763 in  support of their submission that
\nonce five years period of exemption
\n1021<\/span>
\nexpired\t during\t the pendency of the suit, the\tcivil  court
\nceased to have jurisdiction to pass decree of eviction or to
\nexecute\t the  same. In these decisions Section 2(2)  of\t the
\nU.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and  Evic-
\ntion)  Act  1972,  granting immunity  to  newly\t constructed
\nbuildings for a period of 10 years from the operation of the
\nAct  was considered and interpreted. In both of these  deci-
\nsions  a Bench of two Judges held that on the expiry  of  10
\nyears  period of exemption during the pendency of the  suit,
\nthe  provisions\t of the Act would apply and  the  tenant  is
\nentitled  to the protection of Section 39 of the Act and  no
\ndecree of eviction could be passed against him. On behalf of
\nthe landlords it was urged that the view taken in the afore-
\nsaid two cases is incorrect and contrary to the observations
\nmade by a larger Bench of this Court in Om Prakash Gupta  v.
\nDig Vijendrapal Gupta,<\/a> [1982] 3 SCR 491 and also against the
\ndecision  in  Nand  Kishore Marwah v.  Smt.  Samundri  Devi,<\/a>
\n[1987]\t4 SCC 382. It was further urged that Section  39  of
\nthe  U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,  Rent\t and
\nEviction) Act 1972 protects the tenant from eviction provid-
\ned  the suit was pending on the date of commencement of\t the
\nAct  and not to a suit instituted thereafter. In the  afore-
\nsaid  decisions it was held that a suit for eviction  insti-
\ntuted  within period of exemption of 10 years could  be\t de-
\ncreed by the civil court even if during the pendency of\t the
\nlitigation 10 years’ period of exemption expired. The  coun-
\nsel  for the landlords further placed reliance on the  deci-
\nsion of this Court in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punja,<\/a>
\n[1988]\t4  SCC 284 wherein Section 13 of the  Haryana  Urban
\n(Control  of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 granting  exemption
\nto  newly constructed building for a period of 10 years\t was
\nconsidered. The Court held that a suit instituted within the
\nperiod of exemption for eviction of the tenant, could legal-
\nly be decreed even if the period of exemption expired during
\nthe  pendency of the suit. These decisions no doubt  support
\nthe  view we are taking but we do not consider it  necessary
\nto  consider these decisions in detail as the provisions  of
\nthe Rent Control Legislation, which were considered in those
\ndecisions  were\t quite\tdifferent which\t did  not  expressly
\npreserve  the jurisdiction of the civil court to decree\t the
\nsuit  after  expiry of the period of  exemption,  while\t the
\nimpugned Notification in express terms, maintains the juris-
\ndiction\t of the civil court to decree a suit  for  eviction,
\neven if the period of exemption expires during the  pendency
\nof  the\t suit. There is no provision under  the\t U.P.  Urban
\nBuildings  (Regulation\tof Letting, Rent and  Eviction)\t Act
\n1972 or the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act
\n1973  containing similar provision as contained in  the\t im-
\npugned Notification. We therefore do not consider it  neces-
\nsary  to  discuss the aforesaid decisions in  detail  or  to
\nexpress any final opinion about the correctness of the same.\n<\/p>\n
1022<\/span><\/p>\n
    It\twas then urged that the impugned Notification  prac-
\nticed  discrimination  between two class of tenants  in\t the
\nUnion Territory of Chandigarh. The two class of tenants are:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  the tenants of old buildings which were never  exempted
\nfrom the provisions of the act, the tenants of the buildings
\nentitled to protection of the Act, and (ii) the tenants\t ,of
\nnewly constructed buildings exempted from the protection  of
\nthe  Act,  who are liable to be evicted at any time  at\t the
\nmercy of the landlord. In Mohinder Kumar v. State of Haryana
\n& Anr.,<\/a> (supra), this Court considering a similar  challenge
\nto the validity of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban  (Control
\nof Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 held that the  classification
\nof  buildings with reference to the date of  completion\t for
\nthe purposes of regulating the rent and eviction of  tenants
\nfrom  such  buildings has a rational basis and has  a  clear
\nnexus  with  the object to be  achieved.  Classification  is
\nrounded\t on  intelligible differentia which has\t a  rational
\nnexus  with the object of the Act. It does not practice\t any
\ninvidious discrimination between two classes of tenants, the
\nclassification is reasonable and it does not violate Article
\n14  of\tthe Constitution of India. It is  not  necessary  to
\ndiscuss\t the  question further as we are in  full  agreement
\nwith  the view taken in Mohinder Kumar’s case  (supra).\t The
\nobject and purpose of the exemption as discussed earlier  is
\nto effectuate the purpose of the Act, to ensure availability
\nof more and more accommodation to meet the need of tenants.
\n    In\tview of the above discussion we hold that Section  3
\nas well as the impugned Notification are valid and the\tsame
\ndo not suffer from any constitutional or legal infirmity. We
\nfurther\t hold  that  civil court has  jurisdiction  to\tpass
\ndecree\teven  after the expiry of period  of  exemption,  in
\nsuits  instituted  during the period of\t exemption,  and  to
\nexecute\t the same notwithstanding the provisions of  Section
\n13  of\tthe Act. In the result the  civil  appeals,  special
\nleave  petitions, and the writ petitions fails and  are\t ac-
\ncordingly dismissed with costs and all interim orders  stand
\ndischarged.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.S.\t\t\t\t     Petitions dismissed.\n1023<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 SCR (2)1005, 1989 SCC (3) 151 Author: K Singh Bench: Singh, K.N. (J) PETITIONER: KESHO RAM & CO. & ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/05\/1989 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-10T13:33:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-10T13:33:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989\"},\"wordCount\":6365,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989\",\"name\":\"Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-10T13:33:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-10T13:33:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989","datePublished":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-10T13:33:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989"},"wordCount":6365,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989","name":"Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-10T13:33:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kesho-ram-co-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kesho Ram & Co. & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 May, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141436","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=141436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}