Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CLASS PRESENTATION
Allowing the tenant's revision, the High Court held that since
the landlord had retired from service On 30thNovember, 1975
before the Ordinance came into force on December 9th 1975,
the tenant was not liable to vacate the premises
independently of his ownership in the Premises in dispute.
Allowing the appeal.
Supreme court reasoning
Disagreeing with findings of high court supreme court held that the
person as not being confined to government servants for it is seen that
accommodation has been provided by the government not only to
government servants but to others also. In the circumstances, the court
cannot help giving the plain and unambiguous meaning to the section. It
may be that the retired government servants as well as others who are in
occupation of government accommodation may entitled to a special
advantage.
But the purpose of legislation being to enable the government to get
possession of accommodation provided by them by enabling the
allottees to get the immediate possession of the residential
accommodation owned but let out by them( tenants).
In this case the term government servant is unambiguous and plain.
But lacking clarity, uncertainty in this term . The cardinal rule for the
construction of acts of parliament is that they should be constructed
according to the intention expressed in the acts themselves.
But plain meaning of this provision alone not able to meet the
intention of the law giver.
So every statute must be interpretated ex visceribus actus (within the
four corners of the act) means statute must be read as whole to see the
intention of legislation.
Thank you