TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pees. The argument is that though the Act is designed to apply generally to all residential and nonresidential buildings, residential buildings or parts thereof fetching a rent of more than rupees four hundred are singled out and taken out of the purview of the act, arbitrarily and without any reason. It is said that the classification of tenants of residential buildings fetching a rent of over rupees four hundred per month into a distinct class for the purpose of depriving them of the benefit of the Act by excepting such buildings from the operation of the Act has no reasonable nexus to the three-fold object of the Act, namely, the regulation of the letting of residential as well as non-residential buildings, the control of rents of such buildings and the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom. In the State of Tamil Nadu, it all started with two wartime measures, the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941 and the Madras Godown Rent Control Order, 1942, both issued under the Defence of India Rules. These orders were reissued with slight modifications in 1945 as the Madras Rent Control Order 1945 and the Madras Non-Residential Buildings Rent Control Order 1945 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dential buildings and the control of rents of such buildings and the preventions of unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the State of Tamil Nadu . Building is defined by sec. 2(2) as meaning any building or hut or part of building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes and includes - (a) the garden grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such buildings, hut or part of such building or hut and let or to be let along with such building or hut, but does not include a room in a hotel or boarding house; section 3 casts a duty on the landlord to give notice of vacancy of a building. Sections 3 and 3(A) prescribe the procedure to be followed after intimation of vacancy is given, either by way of allotment to some other person or release in favour of the landlord. Section 4 provides for the fixation of fair rent both for residential and nonresidential buildings. Section 7 prohibits a landlord from receiving rent in excess of the fair rent. Section 8 requires every landlord to issue a receipt duly signed by him for the actual amount of rent or advance received by him. Section 9 enables the tenant to deposit the rent lawfully payabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or non-residential, low-rent or high-rent. They are not rights which are peculiarly capable of enjoyment by occupants of nonresidential buildings only as against occupants of residential buildings or by occupants of low-rent buildings only as against occupants of high-rent buildings. None of the main provisions of the Act, to which we have referred, make any serious distinction between residential and nonresidential buildings. We may now turn to s. 30(ii) which reads as follows : Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any residential building or part thereof occupied by anyone tenant if the monthly rent paid by him in respect of that building or part exceeds four hundred rupees. By one stroke, this provision denies the benefits conferred by the Act generally on all tenants to tenants of residential buildings fetching a rent in excess of four hundred rupees. As a result of this provision, while the tenant of a non-residential building is protected, whether the rent is ₹ 50, ₹ 500 or ₹ 5000 per month, a tenant of a residential building is protected if the rent is ₹ 50, but not if it is ₹ 500 or ₹ 5000 per month. Does it mean t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of s. 30(ii) are a total departure from the rent Act and takes away the protection afforded to the tenant under the Act, thus rendering the Act nugatory. As submitted already, the provisions of s. 30(ii) do not at all contain any hostile discrimination, simply because it is based on quantum of rent.........I submit that taking into account the general increase in rent and the cost of living index, the upper limit had to be increased keeping in mind the welfare of the weaker sections of society. Hence I submit that the change of upper limit cannot be said to be discriminatory..........The grant and withdrawal of exemption have been done only keeping in mind the welfare of the weaker sections of the society and it is only with that object, exemption had been withdrawn with regard to residential buildings. The counter affidavit does not explain why any distinction should be made between residential and nonresidential buildings in the matter of affording the protection of the provisions of the Act. To say that a nonresidential building is different from a residential building is merely to say what is self-evident and means nothing. Tenants of both kinds of buildings equall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these days of universal, day today escalation of rentals any ceiling such as that imposed by s. 30(ii) in 1973 can only be considered to be totally artificial and irrelevant today. As held by this Court in Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1984] 1 S.C.C. 222 = A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 87 a provision which was perfectly valid at the commencement of the Act could be challenged later on the ground of unconstitutionality and struck down on that basis. What was once a perfectly valid legislation, may in course of time, become discriminatory and liable to challenge on the ground of its being violative of Art. 14. After referring to some of the earlier cases Venkataramiah, J. observed : .......The garb of constitutionality which it may have possessed earlier has become worn out and its unconstitutionality is now brought out to a successful challenge. Shri A.V. Rangam, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, invited our attention to some sentences from the judgment of this Court in Raval Co. v. Ramachandran, [1974] 2 S.C.R. 629 where, referring to s. 30(ii) before it was amended in 1973, it was observed : Clause (ii) exempts any residential building ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
