Extension of rent control to cantonments upheld where delegated power was limited and prior orders were statutorily saved.

The statutory scheme validly extended Uttar Pradesh rent control law to cantonment areas through notifications under the 1957 Act, because the legislature laid down a clear policy and the delegated power was confined to limited extension with necessary adaptations, not excessive delegation. The later notifications were also not invalid merely because an earlier extension had already been made. A restricted 1-9-1973 notification did not defeat jurisdiction, since the 1957 Act's deeming provision saved decrees and orders made before the later extension; accordingly, orders passed by the prescribed authority before the 17-2-1982 notification were protected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 and the notifications issued under it validly extended the Uttar Pradesh urban rent control law to cantonments in Uttar Pradesh and whether the power under Section 3 could be exercised more than once. (ii) Whether the notification dated 1-9-1973, read with the later notification dated 17-2-1982, made the amended provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applicable to cantonment areas and saved orders made by the prescribed authority before the later extension.

Issue (i): Whether the extension of the Uttar Pradesh rent control law to cantonments and the repeated exercise of the notification power were valid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme showed a clear legislative policy that cantonment areas should, as far as possible, be governed by the same rent control law as the rest of the State. The repeal of the earlier special cantonment enactment removed the obstacle to extension of the State law, and the amended Section 3 of the 1957 Act enabled extension from time to time as the State law itself changed. The power conferred was limited to extension with only such restrictions and modifications as were necessary to adapt the law to cantonment conditions. It did not amount to abdication of legislative function or excessive delegation, and the later notifications were not invalid merely because an earlier notification had already been issued.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the statutory power and the notifications failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the restricted wording of the 1-9-1973 notification and the later 17-2-1982 notification affected the jurisdiction of the prescribed authority and the validity of orders made before the later extension.

Analysis: Although the 1-9-1973 notification extended the 1972 Act only as it then stood, Section 3(4) of the 1957 Act independently protected decrees and orders made before the later extension by deeming them to have been made under the corresponding extended provisions. The later notification of 17-2-1982 extended the amended law as it stood in the State, and orders passed by the competent authority before that extension were saved. The order made by the prescribed authority was therefore not without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to the prescribed authority's competence and the validity of its order was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals raised no sustainable challenge to the applicability of the rent control law in cantonment areas or to the authority exercised under the notifications. The common result was that the assailed orders stood undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statute authorising extension of another law to cantonment areas is not invalid for excessive delegation if the legislature has laid down the policy and the delegated power is confined to limited extension with necessary modifications, and orders made by a competent authority before a later statutory extension can be saved by the statute's deeming provision.

---