Case Note & Summary
The case concerned the interpretation of Section 259 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, which provides for summary recovery of certain dues by a Magistrate on application by a Cantonment Board or Military Estates Officer. The appellant, Cantonment Board, Ambala, had leased property to the respondent, Pyarelal, and sought to recover arrears of rent through the summary procedure under Section 259. On 7 January 1960, the Cantonment Executive Officer applied to the Magistrate for realization of Rs.649.50 from the respondent as arrears of rent under a lease. The Magistrate held that he had jurisdiction and issued warrants for attachment of the respondent's movable property on 13 June 1961. The respondent challenged the Magistrate's order in revision before the Sessions Judge, Ambala, contending that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to realize rent due under a lease under Section 259, and that his objections had not been considered. The Sessions Judge, following earlier Lahore High Court decisions, took the view that rent under a lease could not be recovered under Section 259 and made a reference to the Punjab High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court accepted the reference and set aside the Magistrate's order. The High Court having refused a certificate, the appellant obtained special leave from the Supreme Court. The main legal issues were whether a Magistrate acting under Section 259 is a persona designata and his order is not revisable under Sections 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether rent due under a lease can be recovered under Section 259 by summary application. The appellant argued that the Magistrate was a persona designata relying on Dargah Committee, Ajmer v. State of Rajasthan, and that the High Court therefore had no jurisdiction to interfere. The appellant also contended that the High Court erred in holding that rent under a lease could not be recovered under Section 259. The respondent did not appear before the Supreme Court but had earlier argued lack of jurisdiction. The majority (Wanchoo and Sikri JJ.) refused to allow the persona designata plea at that late stage, observing that the High Court could have interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution if the point had been raised earlier. On merits, the majority interpreted Section 259 as allowing summary recovery only of amounts "recoverable by a Board or a Military Estates Officer under the Act or the Rules made thereunder". The word "recoverable" meant "claimable". Although the Board had power under the Cantonments Act and the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 to manage and lease property and fix rents, no express provision made rent due under a lease claimable by the Board under the Act or Rules. Section 257 read with Section 256 was an example of the Board's power to claim rent from the tenant of an owner, not from its own lessee. Rule 42 which had provided for such recovery had been repealed in 1940, before the 1954 amendment of Section 259, so it could not be argued that the repeal was because of the amendment. The majority clarified that the Board could still recover such rent by suit under the general law. The dissenting judge (Mudholkar J.) held that Section 259 permitted recovery by either authority of money which the Act or Rules permit them to recover, and since the Board had power to let out property and collect rent, rent due from a lessee was recoverable under Section 259. The appeal was dismissed by majority, the High Court's order was upheld, and the Board could not use the summary procedure under Section 259 for rent due purely under a lease.
Headnote
A) Cantonments Act, 1924 - Recovery of Rent - Section 259 - Summary Recovery Limited to Amounts Recoverable Under Act or Rules - The Cantonment Board applied to a Magistrate under Section 259 to recover arrears of rent due from a lessee. The majority held that the word "recoverable" in Section 259 means "claimable", and since no provision in the Cantonments Act, 1924 or the rules made thereunder expressly made rent due under a lease claimable by the Board, Section 259 could not be used. The Board's power to lease property and fix rents did not itself render such rent recoverable under the Act or Rules. The Board could still recover such rent by suit under the general law. Held that the High Court correctly set aside the Magistrate's order. B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Revisional Jurisdiction - Persona Designata - Sections 435 and 439 - Whether Magistrate Acting Under Section 259 Is a Persona Designata - The appellant argued that the Magistrate acting under Section 259 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 was a persona designata and therefore his order was not revisable under Sections 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Supreme Court refused to permit this new plea at the appellate stage, observing that even if the High Court lacked revisional jurisdiction, it could have interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution if the point had been raised earlier. Held that the plea could not be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. C) Cantonments Act, 1924 - Interpretation of Section 259 - Dissenting Opinion - Rent Due Under Lease Recoverable by Board - Per Mudholkar J. (dissenting), Section 259 should be interpreted to permit recovery by the Board or Military Estates Officer of money which the Act or Rules permit them to recover. Since the Board had power under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 to let out property and collect rent, rent due from a lessee fell within Section 259. Restricting "rent" to express provisions would render the word otiose because no provision of the Act expressly made rent claimable by either authority. Held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Magistrate's order.
Issue of Consideration
Whether rent due under a lease to a Cantonment Board is recoverable under Section 259 of Cantonments Act, 1924; Whether Magistrate acting under Section 259 is persona designata and his order is not revisable under Sections 435/439 CrPC.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed by majority (Wanchoo and Sikri JJ.; Mudholkar J. dissenting). The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order setting aside the Magistrate's order. The Court held that rent due purely under a lease was not recoverable under Section 259 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 because it was not 'recoverable by a Board or a Military Estates Officer under the Act or the Rules made thereunder'. The Board could still recover such rent by suit under the general law.
Law Points
- Section 259 Cantonments Act 1924 permits summary recovery only of amounts recoverable under Act or Rules
- Rent due purely under a lease is not recoverable under Act or Rules and cannot be recovered under Section 259
- Cantonment Board may sue under general law
- Persona designata plea not allowed at late stage
- High Court could interfere under Article 227
- Word recoverable means claimable.
