This Case Commentary is written by Malik Mohamadsahaj, a Law Graduate of Shri S.M.Shah Law College,Mehsana(Gujarat)

Case Details :

Equivalent citation : AIR1954BOM358, (1954)56BOMLR308, ILR1954BOM950,AIR 1954 BOMBAY 358, 56 BOM LR 308

Case Type – Civil case

Court – Bombay High Court

Bench: Chief Justice Chagla, C.J

PARTIES-

Appellant : K.K. Verma

Respondent: Union of India

Abstract

The case of K.K. Verma And Anr. Vs Union of India And Anr. (1954) addresses the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act, as challenged by the petitioners on the grounds of violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of these provisions, emphasizing, the legislative competence of parliament in enhancing tax laws essential for public welfare and governance. The judgment highlighted the importance of reasonable classification in taxation, reaffirmed that individual rights are not absolute, and underscored the necessity of balancing personal freedoms with state interests. This case serves as a significant precedent in Indian constitutional law, guiding future interpretations related to taxation and fundamental rights while illustrating the judiciary’s role in maintaining this balance.

Facts Of This Case

· The respondent was a displaced person who received a flat in Dhobi Talao based on his status as a dependent of an army officer.

· A contractual monthly tenancy was established between the Union of India and the respondent.

· The Union terminated this tenancy via a notice dated June 25, 1953, due to non-compliance with eviction.

As the respondent did not hand over possession he had filed the petition from which this appeal arises on 15-4-1953, before the notice, apprehending that the appellant who is the Sub–Area Commander would take action against him, the Union gave further notice on 3-8-1953, under section 3 of Act 27 of 1950, calling upon the respondent to hand over ‘possession within fifteen days’ from the date of the service of the notice, and the only question that arises in this appeal is whether this notice be valid provided the respondent comes within the ambit of section 3 of Act 27 of 1950.

Issues Raised On This Case

This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Desai and it raises the very short question as to the interpretation of section 3 of the Government Premises ( Eviction ) Act 1950, Act No. 27 of 1950. It is necessary to state only a few facts to understand and appreciate the legal arguments that are advanced before us.

Fundamental Rights; The petitioners contended that certain provisions of the Income Tax Act violated their rights.

Article 14: Rights to equality before the law.

Article 19: Rights to freedom of speech and expression, residence, and professional

Legislative competence: Questions were raised regarding the parliament’s authority to impose taxes and whether such provisions could infringe upon individual rights.

Petitioner Arguments

But the real point of substance which has been seriously urged by Mr. Desai is that the case of the respondent falls under Sub-clause (b) and what we have to consider is whether a person who was lawfully in occupation of Government premises as a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated and who continues in possession of those premises can be described in law as a person in unauthorized occupation. Mr. Desai contends that on the notice to quit being given by the landlord and the landlord clearly expressing his intention that on the termination of the tenancy he wanted possession of the premises, the possession of the tenant after the termination became wrongful; it was against the express wish of the landlord and, therefore, the tenant became a trespasser.

Mr. Desai further contends that the Legislature in using the present tense "is" was emphasizing the fact that the person against whom proceedings are to be taken is a person who was in unauthorized occupation at the date when the notice contemplated by Section 3 is to be issued and, therefore, Mr. Desai says that however lawful the possession of the tenant was at its inception, if it became unauthorized at the point of time emphasized by the Legislature, then Section 3 would apply to such a person and a notice can be issued against him.

Respondent Arguments

Therefore, in our opinion, it is impossible to contend that the case of the respondent can fall under Section 3(1) (a) (ii) because it is not suggested that he contravened any of the terms of the tenancy while the tenancy was subsisting. What is alleged against him is that after the tenancy was terminated, he failed to hand over possession as required by Section 108(q). Therefore, the obligation that he failed to discharge was an obligation that arose on the termination of the tenancy and not an obligation that he had to discharge while the tenancy was subsisting.

Mr. Desai further contends that the Legislature in using the present tense "is" was emphasizing the fact that the person against whom proceedings are to be taken is a person who was in unauthorized occupation at the date when the notice contemplated by Section 3 is to be issued and, therefore, Mr. Desai says that however lawful the possession of the tenant was at its inception, if it became unauthorized at the point of time emphasized by the Legislature, then Section 3 would apply to such a person and a notice can be issued against him.

Now, there is no doubt that the respondent entered into these premises under a proper title, that his occupation was authorized, and that his possession after the termination of the tenancy, as already pointed out, was juridical. On the other hand, in the case of a trespasser, from its very inception his possession is unlawful, and at no point in time could it be said of a trespasser that his possession was juridical. In our opinion, the Legislature was not so much emphasizing the point of time when it used the expression "any person is in unauthorized occupation" as the nature of the possession of the person referred to in that sub-clause. "Is" obviously is used in the present perfect tense rather than in the present tense and "is in unauthorized occupation" means that the occupation was unauthorized to start with and continued to be unauthorized throughout the time that the person was in possession.

Analysis Of The Law

That Act was put on the statute book, as the preamble shows, to provide for the eviction of certain persons from Government premises and certain matters connected therewith. The expression "certain persons" does not throw much light on the intention of the Legislature because it is clear that the persons contemplated are persons who would satisfy the conditions laid down in Section 3, and, therefore, determine whether a person is a certain person to whom the Act applies, what we have to do is to construe Section 3 and in construction of Section 3 the preamble is not of any assistance.

Section 3 is entitled "Power to evict certain persons from Government premises." Sub-section (2) of Section 3 gives the power to the competent authority to evict the person from and take possession of, the premises and for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. Section 4 confers the power upon the authority to recover damages. Section 5 provides for appeal to the Central Government. Section 6 ousts the jurisdiction of civil Courts and Section 9 is the penal section which makes a person liable to punishment if he obstructs the lawful exercise of any power conferred by or under the Act or contravenes any provision of the Act or any rule or order made thereunder. Therefore, the statute is like a penal statute and there can be no doubt that it must be strictly construed in favor of the subject.

Now, turning to Section 3, it provides:

"(1) If the competent authority is satisfied-

(a) that the person authorized to occupy any Government premises has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act,--

(i) Sub-let, without the permission of the Central Government or the competent authority, the whole or any part of such premises, or

(ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such premises, or

(b) that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any Government premises.

The competent authority may, by notice served by post or otherwise, order that that person as well as any other person who may be in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises, shall vacate them within fifteen days of the date of the service of the notice....."

The scheme of Section 3 seems to be that Sub-clause (a) deals with authorised persons to occupy Government premises and it gives the power to evict in cases where such persons have sub-let or where they have acted in contravention of the terms, express or implied, under which they were authorised to occupy the premises, and Sub-clause (b) deals with persons who are in occupation of Government premises and whose occupation is unauthorised.

In our opinion, it is clear that Sub-clause (a) deals with the acts of a person which he commits while having the Government premises which he is authorised to possess. The obligation of the tenant to hand over possession under Section 108(q) only arises after the tenancy has been terminated and to the extent that Sub-clause (a) deals with tenants, it deals with the acts of the tenants while the tenancy is subsisting. Sub-clause (a) (i) deals with the case of a sub-letting which the tenant does while he is a tenant and Sub-clause (a) (ii) deals with contravention of express or implied terms of the tenancy, again while the tenancy is subsisting.

The penalty, if imposed upon a trespasser, would be a proper penalty because he had no right to be in occupation of Government premises at any time, and his very entry being unauthorised, he could not contend that his possession was protected or his possession was juridical. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Judge below was right in the view that he took that the Act did not apply to persons whose possession of Government premises was in its inception with title or legal. As it is not disputed in this case that" the respondent's possession was under a contract of tenancy, in our opinion, he did not become an unauthorised person within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) and the notice issued by the Union of India against him is an invalid notice.

Key Elements Of The Judgement

· Factual Background: The case involved K.K. Verma, challenging the actions of the Union of India regarding certain administrative decisions that allegedly violated his rights.

· Legal Issues: The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of statutory provisions and their compliance with the Constitution of India, particularly concerning fundamental rights.

· Constitutional Provisions: The court scrutinized the relevant Articles of the Constitution, specifically focusing on Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19 (freedom of speech and expression).

· Judgment on Authority: The court ruled on the limits of governmental authority, emphasizing that administrative bodies must operate within the framework established by law.

· Discretionary Powers: The court analyzed the exercise of discretionary powers by authorities, indicating that such powers must not be exercised arbitrarily and must align with legislative intent.

· Impact on Administrative Law: The decision had significant implications for administrative law in India, establishing a framework for accountability and transparency in administrative actions.

Conclusion

The ruling in K.K. Verma And Anr. Vs Union of India And Anr. (1954) serves as a significant reference point for understanding tenant rights and government authority in matters of eviction, highlighting the importance of legislative clarity and procedural fairness in such cases.

References

· K.K. Verma And Anr. vs Union of India And Anr. January 19,(1954)

· (indiankanoon.org)

· https://bombayhighcourt.nic.in judgment