Naeem Bano alias Gaindo vs Mohammad Rahees & Anr.
Background
The appellant, a landlord, issued an eviction (ejectment) notice to her tenant in 2015 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The tenant's revision petition against the ejectment order was kept pending by the Allahabad High Court because a related question: the validity of the notice period under Section 106, given a conflict between a 1954 Uttar Pradesh State amendment (30-day notice) and a 2003 Parliamentary amendment (15-day notice): had been referred to a larger Bench of the High Court. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing there was no need to wait for the reference to be answered.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under Article 254 of the Constitution, when Parliament later enacts a law on a subject in the Concurrent List that conflicts with an earlier State law, the Parliamentary law prevails and the State law is impliedly repealed to the extent of the inconsistency, even if the State law had earlier received Presidential assent. Since Parliament's 2003 amendment to Section 106 came after the UP State's 1954 amendment, the Central 15-day notice period applied, and the UP amendment's 30-day requirement had become insignificant. The Court therefore held that the validity of the notice was no longer a live controversy and directed the High Court to decide the tenant's revision petition on its own merits promptly, without waiting for the larger Bench's answer to the reference.
Lesson Learnt
When Parliament makes a later law on a subject shared with the States (the Concurrent List), that Central law overrides an earlier, conflicting State law: a principle that here resolved years of uncertainty over how much notice a landlord must give before evicting a tenant.