Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
N.N. ABDUL RAWOOF
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PICHAMUTHU & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/02/2000
BENCH:
B.N. Kirpal, M B Shah.,
JUDGMENT:
D E R
The only question which arises for consideration in this
appeal is as to what is the meaning of the expression
"not less than Rs.1200" occurring in the Timal Nadu Debt
Relief Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ’the said
Act’).
The father of the respondent had executed a usufructuary
mortgage deed in respect of a property in favour of the
appellant herein for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on
25-12-1967. This property was given on lease to some
tenants for more than 10 years. Under the provisions of
the said Act the respondents filed an application seeking
direction that the usufrucuary mortgage had been
completely discharged. The respondents claimed to be
debtors within the meaning of the Act.
The appellant herein contended that the respondents could
not be regarded as debtors within the meaning of section
3 (3) of the said Act inasmuch as the rental value of the
respondent’s property was as much if not more than what
is required under the Act. The District Munsif dismissed
the respondents application which was affirmed in appeal.
In second appeal owever the High Court came to the
conclusion that the respondents were debtors within the
meaning of Section 3(3) of the Act. It came to the
conclusion that the annual rental value of Rs. 1200/-
was not enough to deprive them of the benefit of being
regarded as debtors.
The admitted fact being that the annual rental value of
the property belonging to the respondents being Rs.
1200/- the question is whether the respondents can be
regarded as debtors. The relevant provision of Section
3(3) of the said Act reads as under:-
"3(3) debtor’s means any person from whom any debt is due:
Provided that a person shall not be deemed to be a debtor
if he,
(i) has in both the financial years ending on the 31st
March, 1977 and the 31st March, 1978, been assessed to --
(a) income-tax under the Income tax Act, 1961 (Central
Act XLIII of 1961) or under the income tax law in force
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
in any foreign country; or
(b) agricultural income-tax under the Tamil Nadu
Agricultural Income-tax Ac, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act V of
1955) or under any law in force in any other State or
Union territory in India) or
(ii) has, in both the financial years ending on the 31st
1978, been assessed to sales ta under the Tamil Nadu
General Sales 1959) or under the Central Sales Tax Act,
1956 (Central Act LXXIV of 1956); or
(iii) has in all the four half years immediately
preceding the 1st March, 1978 been assessed to property
or house tax in respect of buildings or lands other than
agricultural lands, underr the Tamil Nadu district
Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920), the
Madras city Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (Tamil Nadu
Act IV of 1919), the Madurai city Municipal Corporation
Act, 1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXV of 1958), the cantonments
Act, 1924 (Central Act II or 1924) or any law governing
municipal or local bodies in this State or in any other
State or Union Territory in India. provided that the
aggregate annual rental valule of such buildings and
lands wheter let out or in the occupation ofthe owner, is
not less than repees one thousand and two hundred." the
On a careful reading f the said provision, it appears
that any person from whom debt is due is regarded as a
debtor. The proviso to sub-section (3) exclused certain
categories of persons from being regarded as debtors.
According to sub clause (iii) a person who owes money
shall not be deemed to be a debtor if he has in all the
four halft years preceeding 1st March 1978 been assessed
to property of house tax provided the aggregate annual
value of such buildings or lands in not less than Rs.
1200/-. Owner of a property is thus sought to be
excluded from the definition of debtor, but not every
owner is excluded as persons whon own property having
less rental value will continue to be regarded as
debtors.
As already noticed what has to be seen is as to what is
the meaning of the expression is " not less than
Rs.1200/-" occurring inthe aforesaid proviso, According
to the High Court the respondents would get the benefit
and would be regarded as debtors even though the annual
rental value of the property owned by them is Rs. 1200/-
The implication of the decision of the High Court is that
it is only if the rental value was more than Rs. 1200
that the proviso would have been attracted.
As we read the said proviso it appears to us that the
expression "not less than Rs. 1200/-" means that the
minimum amount of rental value if it is Rs. 1,200/- then
the personn would be covered by the proviso and would not
be regarded as a debtor. In stroud’s Judicial Dictionary
5th Edn. at page 1200 it is noted that " Where a statue
prescribes a penalty for an offence of "not less" than a
stated amount, that is the minimum penalty that justices
can impose, notwithstanding that the section, prescribing
the penalty, says that the offender "shall be liable"
thereto; and the power to mitigate given by the Summary
Jurisdiction Act 1879 (c.49) s.4, was in such a case
qualified so that mitigation could not go below such
minimum (Osborn v. Wood (1897) 1 Q.B. 197)."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
In Raja Kulkarni & Ors. Vs. State of Bombay (1954 SCR
384 a question arose regarding the recognition of a trade
union. Section 13 of the Bombay Industrial Regulation
Act, 1946 provided that a representative union should
have a membership of "not less than 15 per cent of the
total number of employees." Whillllllle interpreting this
provision it was observed at page 390 that "the statute
lays down a minimum qualification of 15 per cent of
membership to enable the union to be called a
representative union......" After laying down the test of
not less than 15 per it was perfectly resonable "not to
allow any other union such as the appellants to interpose
in a dispute on behalf of the textile workers when they
did not command the minimum percentage or when their
membership fell below the prescribed percentage." The
view which was expressed in Raja Kulkarni case (Supra)
clearly was that when the statute used the expression not
less than a particular figure then that figure is the
minimum.
In K.P. Varghese Vs. I.T.O. & Anr., (1981) 4 SCC 173
this court was required to interpret section 52 of the
Income tax Act 1961 where in sub-section (2) the Income
tax officer would get jurisdiction to acquire a capital
asses if the fair market value of that asset exceeded the
full value of consideration "by an amount of not less
than 15 per cent of the value declared........" Analysing
this provision it was held that according to sub-section
(2) the difference between the fair market value and the
consideration declared will have to be 15 per cent or
more to enable the Income tax Officer to exercise
jurisdication under that section. To the same effect is
the decision of this court in Karnail Singh & Ors. vs.
Darshan Singh & Ors., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 760. Section 4
of the Punjab Grampanchayat Act, 1952 enables the
Government to declare any village or the group or
contiguous villages to constitute one or more sabha area
if they had population of "not less than 500."
Interpreting this provision it was held that what was
required for the exercise of powers under said Section 4
was that there should be a minimum population of 500. In
other words, the expressing population of not less thn
500 was interpreted to mean that minimum population
should be 500.
The High Court has referred to the decision of this Court
in The Pioneer Motors Pvt. ltd. Vs. The Municipal
Council, Nagercoil (1961) 3 SCR 609 where the expression
was, which was benging interpreted, "not being less than
one month." This Court held that in order that a notice
should be valid the expression not being less than one
month would mean that there must be notice of 30 clear
days. This would be possible only if the 1st and the
last day on which the notice is ussed is excluded.
Rather than helping the respondent in our opinion the
said decision fortifies the view which we have taken
namely, that the period specified is the minimum perriod.
Not less than one month meant that 30 clear days notice
had to be given and it is only in order to ensure that 30
clear days notice is given that, basing on section 9 of
the General Clauses Act, it was observed that the 1st and
the last date should be excluded.
Similarly, in C.I.T. Calcutta vs. M/s. Braichwaito &
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
Co. Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 262 where the court had to
consider the expression "of a period not less than 7
years" it was held that the period cannot be even one
minute less than 7 years. The ratio of this decision is
not different than the decision of this court in Karnail
singh, K.P. Varghese and Raja kulkarni (supra). To the
same effect is the decision of this Court in Saketh India
Ltd. & Ors. vs. India Securities Ltd. 1999 (3) SCC 1.
From the aforesaid discussion it clearly follows that if
the annual rental value of the property which is owned by
a debtor is not less than Rs. 1,200/- then he would b