In a notable decision, the Supreme Court of India has resolved a long-standing conflict between the Uttar Pradesh state amendment to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the subsequent parliamentary amendment in 2002. The judgment, delivered in Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo v. Mohammad Rahees & Anr, unequivocally held that the 2003 Parliamentary amendment prevails, rendering the 1954 Uttar Pradesh amendment ineffective.
The bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh ruled on the matter, setting aside the High Court’s order, which had indefinitely deferred proceedings pending a larger bench decision.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an eviction notice issued on July 24, 2015, under the parliamentary amendment to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant, Naeem Bano alias Gaindo, a landlord, sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant, Mohammad Rahees, who had contested the notice’s validity. The High Court, invoking the pendency of a related legal question before a larger bench, delayed the resolution of the case, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Core Legal Issues
1. Repugnancy Under Article 254 of the Constitution:
– The Uttar Pradesh legislature amended Section 106 in 1954, increasing the notice period for terminating leases from 15 to 30 days.
– Parliament, in 2002, introduced comprehensive changes to Section 106, reinstating the 15-day notice period for non-agricultural leases and introducing several procedural safeguards.
– The core question was whether the parliamentary amendment superseded the earlier state amendment.
2. Doctrine of Implied Repeal:
– The court considered whether the subsequent central legislation nullified the state amendment due to inconsistency under Article 254 of the Constitution, which governs conflicts between central and state laws.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the constitutional framework and precedents, emphasizing the supremacy of parliamentary legislation in cases of conflict. The bench observed:
“When any subject falls within the Concurrent List, both Parliament and the State Legislature have legislative competence. However, the proviso to Clause 2 of Article 254 applies, and subsequent parliamentary amendments prevail over earlier state laws.”
The court held that the 1954 UP amendment to Section 106 was impliedly repealed by the 2003 parliamentary amendment, which reintroduced uniformity across the country. The bench clarified:
“Article 254 is an instance of parliamentary supremacy. Even if a state amendment has received presidential assent, it becomes void if a later parliamentary amendment covers the same matter.”
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed it to adjudicate the tenant’s petition on merits, based on the validity of the parliamentary amendment. The interim protection granted to the tenant was also vacated.
