TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slature in the impugned section and the object sought to be achieved. We also find that there is an intelligible differentia between the tenants who are sought to be protected by the Act from those who are denied the protection of the Act. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 9-10-1990 - T.K. THOMMEN, S. RANGNATHAN AND P. B. SAWANT, JJ. JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMMEN, J. Civil Appeal No. 4043 of 1987. The question which arises in this appeal is as regards the validity of clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Jammu Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The challenge against the clause on the ground of its alleged violation of Article 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons like the appellant at the mercy of the landlords who can easily evict them by recourse to the far less restrictive provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and on the strength of their agreements of lease. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned clause does not take into account the nature of the building, but only the income of the tenant. The income of the landlord himself is irrelevant. The protection of the Act is withheld or extended, dependent solely on the financial capacity of the tenant and without regard to the need of the landlord or the age or other conditions of the building or any other factor. Treating tenants differently with reference to their annual income is not an intelligible classificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ential buildings leased on rent not exceeding Rs.400 per month and all other buildings--whether residential or non-residential--was an unreasonable classification. There was no reason why non-residential buildings leased on rent of Rs.400 per month or less should be treated differently from residential buildings of like rent or why in the case of residential buildings the limit should have been limited to Rs.400 per month. To so restrict the protection of the Act was an unreasonable classification. In the Motor General Traders (supra), this Court stated that to arbitrarily prescribe a cut off date, i.e., August 26, 1957, for denying the protection of the Act, without regard to the age of the building or to the extent of realisation of the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he legislature, at the same time, did not desire to discourage persons from constructing buildings. The twin legislative object is the protection of economically weaker tenants and encouragement of construction of buildings. While protection is thus afforded to deserving tenants, construction of new buildings is encouraged by exempting buildings occupied by richer classes of tenants from the provisions of the Act. While a building is covered by the Act when occupied by a tenant whose annual net income is less than the specified amount, the protection is withheld when the same building is occupied by a richer tenant whose annual net income is higher than the specified amount. Where a building is occupied by more than one ten- ant, the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is income minus operating expenses. The concept of net income is what it is ordinarily understood to be in common parlance, and not necessarily limited by the technicalities of any fiscal enactment. See in this connection the observation of the Jammu Kashmir High Court in Banarasi Das v. Jagdish Raj Kohli, AIR 1960 J K 5. The legislature in its wisdom is presumed to understand and appreciate correctly the problems of the State and the needs of the people made manifest by experience. Absent blatant, disregard of constitutional provisions, legislative innovation by social and economic experimentation must be permitted to continue without judicial interference. The High Court, as stated earlier, followed its earlier decision on the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se who have been left out and there must be a reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved by the legislation. Keeping in view the object which the legislation seeks to achieve, it can be safely said that there is reasonable nexus between the classification made by the legislature in the impugned section and the object sought to be achieved. We also find that there is an intelligible differentia between the tenants who are sought to be protected by the Act from those who are denied the protection of the Act. We are in complete agreement with what has been stated by the learned Chief Justice. Accordingly, we see no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs here and in the courts below. Civil Appeal No. 1370 of 1987. This a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
