http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BABURAO SHANTARAM MORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD ANDANOTHER.,

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/12/1953

BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN SASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ) BOSE, VIVIAN HASAN, GHULAM JAGANNADHADAS, B.

CITATION:  1954 AIR  153            1954 SCR  572  CITATOR INFO :  R          1967 SC1581  (8,19,21)  MV         1974 SC2009  (3,23)  D          1985 SC 270  (6,10)  E&F        1989 SC1642  (15)

ACT:  Constitution of India, art. 14-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodg-  ing House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947), s.  4-  Bombay Housing Board (Amendment) Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951)  inserting  new s. 3-A in Bombay Housing Board Act (Act  LXIX  of 1948) -Whether ultra vires the Constitution.

HEADNOTE: Held,  that neither s. 4 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and  Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947) nor the new s  3-A  inserted in Bombay Housing Board Act, (Act  LXIX  of 1948@  by the Amending Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951) is  ultra vires art. 14 of the Constitution. The  facts  and  arguments are sufficiently  stated  in  the Judgment.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PETITION No. 271 of 1952 Petition  for special leave to appeal No. 108 of 1952. Petition  under article 32 of the Constitution and  petition for special leave against the Judgment and Order stated  the 7th  July, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature  at  Bombay (Chagla  C.  J.  and Gajendragadkar J.)  in  Civil  Revision Application No. 567 of 1952. J.   B. Dadachanji for the petitioner. M.   C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and C.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Porus A.   Mehta, with them) for the respondents. 1953.  December 18.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs J, 573 DAS  J.-The  petitioner before us is in  occupation  of  two

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

rooms  Nos. 387 and 388 in Barrack No. T-93 in Sion  Dharavi Camp  in  Greater Bombay.  The camp  Consisting  of  several tenements  was constructed and’ owned by the  Government  of India during the last world war for the use of the military. In  1948  the Government of Bombay now  represented  by  the State  of  Bombay  purchased  the  camp  and  entrusted  the management thereof to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board--a body  constituted by a Government Resolution.  In  the  same year  the  Bombay  Housing  Board,  the  respondent  No.   4 (hereinafter  referred to as the Board), was established  by the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIX of 1948) as a  body corporate, competent to acquire and  hold  property. The  purposes of the Act included the management and use  of lands  and  buildings belonging to or vested in  the  Board. The  Board  is  authorised  to  frame  and  execute  housing schemes.  Undersection3(3)the Board.is to be deemed to be  a local  authority for the purposes of that Act and  the  Land Acquisition  (Bombay  Amendment)  Act,  1948.   Section   54 (3)provides   that  all  assets  entrusted  to  the   Bombay Provincial  Housing Board shall upon a declaration  made  by the  Government of Bombay vest in the Board.  On  1st  June, 1949  the  Government of Bombay having  made  the  necessary declaration the Sion Dharavi Camp vested,-in the Board. It appears that before the camp was made over to the  Bombay Provincial  Housing  Board  certain  persons  including  the petitioner  had’  without any authority or  title,  occupied portions  of  the camp.  An arrangement was  made  that  the petitioner   and  the  other  persons  who  had  gone   into occupation  of portions of the camp would pay such  rent  as would be fixed by the Government of Bombay.  The  Government of Bombay undertook to carry out certain repairs to the camp with   the  object  of  reconditioning  the   same,and   the petitioner  and others also agreed to pay such rent  as  the Governt  ment  would then fix.  The  petitioner  and  others signed  a letter embodying the terms of the agreement.   The petitioner’s rent was originally fixed at Rs. 14 per  month. The Government Of Bombay then reconditioned 574 the structures at considerable cost and the revised rent  in respect  of the rooms in the occupation of  the  ,petitioner worked out at Rs. 56-8 per month. In or about February, 1950, the Board served a notice on the petitioner calling upon him to quit and vacate the rooms  in his occupation at the end of March, 1950.  An intimation was also  given by that notice that if the petitioner agreed  to pay the revised, rent of Rs. 56-8 per month the Board  would waive the notice to quit.  The petitioner not having  agreed to  pay the revised rent the Board took proceedings  against the  petitioner  in the Court of Small Causes at  Bombay  to recover  possession of the premises in his occupation.   The petitioner took the plea, inter alia, that he was  protected by  the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates  Control Act,  1947  (Act LVII of 1947) popularly called  the  Bombay Rent  Act.  The Board, however, contended that its  premises were  exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent Act  by virtue of section 4 of that Act which runs as follows:- " This Act shall not apply to any premises belonging to  the Government  or  a local authority or apply  as  against  the Government to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of premises  taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government; , but it  shall apply in respect of premises taken on lease or in respect of premises let to the Government or a local authority." The  petitioner’s  rejoinder was that the Board  was  not  a local authority and could not, therefore, claim the  benefit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

of   section   4   and  further  that   that   section   was unconstitutional  in  that  it offended  against  the  equal protection clause of the Constitution.  During the  pendency of  the proceedings in the Court of Small Causes the  Bombay Housing  Board Act was amended by the Bombay  Housing  Board (Amendment)  Act  (Act XI of 1951).  Section 3-A  which  was added by the amending Act is in the words following:-                             575 "3-A.  For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared  that the  Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control  Act, 1947,- (a)shall not apply nor shall be deemed to have ever  applied to any land or building belonging to or vesting in the Board under or for the purposes of this Act; (b)shall not apply nor shall be deemed to have ever  applied as  against  the  Board  to  any  tenancies  or  other  like relationship created by the Board in respect of such land or building; (c)but  shall  apply  to any land or  building  let  to  the Board." The  trial court held that the Board was a  local  authority within  the meaning of section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act  and that  that  section  did not contravene  the  provisions  of article  14 of the Constitution and accordingly on the  14th February,  1952, passed an order for delivery of  possession of the two rooms to the Board but directed that the  warrant for  possession  should not be issued until  the  15th  May, 1952.  The petitioner moved the High Court in revision.  The High  Court  found that it was difficult to  hold  that  the Board  was  a  local authority but  held  that  section  3-A -introduced by the amending Act had retrospectively extended the exemption contained in section 4 of the Bombay Rent  Act to  the Board.  The High Court further held that  there  had been  no  infraction of the petitioner’s  fundamental  right under article 14 and dismissed the application for revision. The petitioner applied to the Bombay High Court for leave to appeal to this court but that application was rejected.  The petitioner  has now applied before us for special leave,  to appeal  against the order of the High Court.  He  "has  also made   a  substantive  application  under  article  32   for enforcement   of   his  fundamental  rights.    Both   these applications have been posted together before us for hearing and disposal. The only point-urged before us by learned counsel  appearing for the petitioner is that the said section 576 3-A which exempts lands or buildings belonging to or  vested in  the  Board from the operation of the  ,Bombay  Rent  Act offends   against  the  equal  protection  clause   of   the Constitution.   He  points  out that  there  are  in  Bombay numerous  Co-operative Housing Societies incorporated  under the Co-operative Societies Act which are similarly  situated and whose object, is also to solve housing problem but their lands and buildings are not exempted from the’ operation  of the  Bombay Rent Act.  The result is that while the  tenants of those Co-operative Housing Societies are fully  protected by  the  Bombay  Rent Act against enhancement  of  rent  and ejectment,  the  tenants  of the Board  are,  by  virtue  of section  3-A, denied the protection of the Bombay Rent  Act. The Co-operative Societies Act does not in terms bring about any  relationship  of  landlord and  tenant  between  a  Co- operative  Housing Society incorporated under that  Act  and its members.  ’there is nothing in that Act to indicate that any  of  the  members of any  of  the  Co-operative  Housing Societies  is a tenant of such society.  No lease  or  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

document has been produced in support of the suggestion that the  Cooperative Housing Societies have any tenant  at  all. Further, though these Co-operative Housing Societies are  no doubt  incorporated  bodies,  they  nevertheless  may   earn profits which may be distributed amongst their members.  The Board,  on the other hand, is an incorporated  body  brought into existence for the purpose of framing housing schemes to solve  the  problem of acute shortage  of  accommodation  in Bombay.   There  are  no  shareholders  interested  in   the distribution of any profit.  It is under the control of  the Government and acts under the orders of the Government.   In effect,  it  is a Government sponsored body not  having  any profit making motive.  No material has been placed before us which may even remotely be regarded as suggesting, much less proving,  that the Co-operative Housing Societies  or  their ’members  stand similarly situated vis-a-vis the  Board  and its  tenants.  The petitioner, therefore, cannot sustain  Os complaint of discrimination on this ground. - 577  Learned  counsel  for  the petitioner then  said  that  the effect  of  section  3-A is to extend  the  benefit  of  the exemption  of section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act to the  Board which,  in other words, implies that the name of  the  Board has been added in section 4 after the local authority.   The contention  is  that  section 4  discriminates  against  the tenants  of  properties belonging to the  Government,  local authority or the Board in that these tenants are denied  the benefits  of the Bombay Rent Act which are available to  all other  tenants  in Bombay.  There can be no  question  that, this  exemption is given by section 4 to certain classes  of tenants and this classification is based on an  intelligible differentia which distinguishes them from other tenants  and this  differentia  has  a rational relation  to  the  object sought to be achieved by the Act.  It is the business of the Government  to solve the accommodation problem  and  satisfy the  public need of housing accommodation.  It was  for  the purpose  of  achieving  this  object  that  the  Board   was incorporated and established.  It is not to be expected that the  Government  or local authority or the Board,  would  be actuated  by any profit making mot as to unduly enhance  the rents or eject the tenants from their respective  properties as  private  Ian are or are likely to  be.   Therefore,  the tenants  Government or local authority or the Board are  not in  need  of  such  protection as  the  tenants  of  private landlords  are and this circumstance is a cogent  basis  for differentiation.   The  two classes of tenants are  not,  by force  of circumstances placed on an equal footing  and  the tenants  of the Government or local authority or  the  Board cannot, therefore, complain of any denial of equality before the law or of equal protection of the law.  There is here no real  discrimination, for the two classes are not  similarly situated.   Neither  section 4 of the Bombay  Rent  Act  nor section’s   3-A  of  the  Bombay  Housing  Board  Act   can, therefore,  be challenged as unconstitutional on the  ground of contravention of article 14 of the Constitution. No other point has been urged before us, 578 We  dismiss both the applications.  The petitioner must  pay one set of costs of the application under article 32. Petition8  dismissed.   Agent for the  petitioner:  Rajinder Narain.  Agent for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.