TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dential building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion; (ii) any non-residential building construction of which is completed after the 31st March, 1962 (iii) any rented land let out on or after 31st March 1962. 4. This provision was amended by the Amending Act of 1978 (Act 16 of 1978) to read as follows: (3) Nothing in this Act shall apply to any building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion. 5. It is the validity of this amended provision which has been questioned in these writ petitions. 6. The validity is challenged mainly on the following grounds: (1) The provision is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (2) In any event in so far as this provision operates retrospectively and seeks to take away the vested rights of the petitioner under the Act, prior to this amendment, the same must be held to be illegal and invalid. 7. The argument is that this provision seeks to make an invidious distinction between buildings constructed befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the buildings, the construction of which was completed on or after the commencement of the Act. This discrimination, it is submitted, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and in this connection reference has been made to the decision of this Court in the case of Motor General Traders and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [1984]1SCR594 and also to the decision of this Court in the case of Punjab Tin Supply Co. Chandigarh v. Central Government and Ors. [1984]1SCR428 8. The next contention is that the amended provision has been given retrospective effect inasmuch as the amendment which was introduced in 1978 has been made applicable to any building construction of which was completed on or after the date of commencement of the Act in 1973 and the retrospective operation of the Act has been effect of taking away the vested right of the tenant and must, therefore, be held to be illegal and bad. It is argued that Section 3(1) of the Act, as originally enacted was void and unconstitutional inasmuch as no period of exemption of any building which may qualify for exemption had been fixed and it is well settled that an indefinite or unlimited immunity to any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable at reasonable rent, there would hardly be any need for Rent Control Legislation. It is entirely for the Legislature to decide whether any measures, are to be adopted for remedying the situation and for ameliorating the hardship of tenants. The Legislature may very well come to a conclusion that it is the shortage of buildings which has resulted in scarcity of accommodation and has created a situation where the demand for accommodation is far in excess of the requisite supply, and it is because of such acute scarcity of accommodation the landlords are in a position to exploit the situation to the serious detriment of the tenants. The Legislature in its wisdom may properly consider that in effecting an improvement of the situation and for mitigating the hardship of the tenanted class caused mainly due to shortage of buildings, it will be proper to encourage construction of new buildings, as construction of new buildings will provide more accommodation, easing the situation to a large extent, and will ultimately result in benefiting the tenants. As in view of the rigours of Rent Control Legislation, persons with means may not be inclined to invest in construction of new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e up on or after the date of commencement of the Act is likely to serve the purpose of encouraging new buildings to be constructed. There is therefore nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in fixing the date of commencement of the Act from which the exemption is to be operative. 13. The exemption for a period of 10 years from the operation of the Act allowed to buildings, the construction of which commenced or was completed on or after the date of commencement of the Act, is fair and reasonable. It is for a definite period and that period of exemption cannot be considered to be too long; and this exemption, the Legislature may be of the view, will serve the purpose of encouraging the construction of new buildings. It is for the Legislature to decide the period of exemption that may be allowed and to fix the date from which the period of exemption should run. This will ordinarily be a matter of Legislative police and this Court will not normally interfere unless the Court is of the opinion that the period of exemption or the date from which the exemption is to operate is unreasonable and arbitrary. The classification of buildings with reference to the date of commencement of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions imposed by the Act in the matter of eviction of tenants and control of rents. 15. It is, however, to be noted that this Court in this very case observed at pp. 243 and 244 as follows: We do realize the adverse effect of this decision on many who may have recently built houses by spending their life savings or by borrowing large funds during these inflationary days at high rates of interest, on the expectation and belief that they would not be subjected to the restrictions imposed by the Act. The incentive to build provides a rational basis for classification and it is necessary, to the national interest, that there should be freedom from restrictions for a limited period of time. It is always open to the State Legislature or the State Government to take action by amending the Act itself or under Section 26 of the Act, as the case may be, not only to provide incentive to persons who are desirous of building new houses, as it serves a definite social purpose but also to mitigate the rigour to such class of landlords who may have recently built their houses for a limited period as it has been done in the Union Territory of Chandigarh as brought out in our recent judgment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip caused to the tenants. The policy and object of the Act generally is mitigation of the hardship of tenants. Such mitigation can be attained by several measures, one of them being creation of incentive to persons with capital who are otherwise reluctant to Invest in the construction of new buildings in view of the chilling effect of the rent control laws. As part of the said scheme in order to persuade them to invest in the construction of new buildings exemption is granted to them from the operation of the Act for a short period of five years so that whatever may be the hardship for the time being to the tenants of the new buildings, the new buildings so constructed may after the expiry of the period of exemption be available for the pool of housing accommodation controlled by the Act. The impugned notification is not, therefore, ultra vires Section 3 of the Act as in its true effect, it advances the scheme, object and purposes of the Act which are articulated in the preamble and the substantive provisions of the Act. Moreover the classification of buildings into exempted buildings and unexempted buildings brought about by the notification bears a just and reasonable nexus to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ite period. That does not necessarily imply that any vested right in any tenant was thereby created. The right claimed is the right to be governed by the Act prior to its amendment. If the Legislature had thought it fit to repeal the entire Act could the tenant have claimed any such right? Obviously, they could not have the question of acquiring any vested rights really does not arise. Even if it could be said that the tenants had acquired any right because of any invalidity of the earlier provision before amendment, it is always open to the Legislature to remove any defect to make it valid. It is well settled that if any provision made by the legislature is found constitutionally invalid for some lacunae or otherwise such provision can always be validated by removing the defect or lacuna by passing a validating Act. Validating Acts may be passed and, in fact, are usually passed with retrospective effect to remedy any situation which might have brought about as a result of the original provision being declared invalid, provided however the Validating Act sought to be passed is within the competence of the Legislature. 19. In the result, these writ petitions are all dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
