http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: RATTAN ARYA ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/04/1986

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) RAY, B.C. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1444            1986 SCR  (2) 596  1986 SCC  (3) 385        1986 SCALE  (1)993  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1987 SC2117  (8)  RF         1991 SC1094  (3,10)

ACT:      Tamil Nadu  Buildings (Lease  and  Rent  Control)  Act, 1960, s.  30(ii) - Provisions excepting from the application of the  Act residential  buildings fetching  rent  exceeding four hundred rupees - Whether violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

HEADNOTE:      Section 30(ii)  of the  Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 excepted from the application of the Act residential  buildings which fetched a rent of more than rupees two  hundred and  fifty per month and non-residential buildings which  fetched a  rent of  more than  rupees  four hundred per  month. This  provision was  amended in  1961 to make the  exception applicable  to either a building or part thereof. In  1964, the  provision relating  to the exception made in  the case  of non-residential  buildings was deleted with  the  result  that  tenants  of  these  buildings  were entitled to  the protection afforded by the Act irrespective of the rent paid by them. The section was further amended by Tamil Nadu  Act 23 of 1973 by substituting the figure rupees four hundred  for the figure of rupees two hundred and fifty in respect of residential buildings or part thereof.      The petitioners  in their writ petitions challenged the vires of this provisions, contending that though the Act was designed to  apply generally  to all  residential  and  non- residential  buildings,   residential  buildings   or  parts thereof fetching  a rent  of more  than rupees  four hundred were singled  out and taken out of the purview of the Act by s. 30(ii)  arbitrarily and without any reason. The petitions were contested  by the  State Government contending in their counter-affidavit   to   the   writ   petitions   that   the classification  of  the  protected  buildings  and  exempted buildings on  the basis  of the  rent was  a reasonable one, consistent  with   the  object   of  the  Act  and  was  not discriminatory.      Allowing the writ petitions, the Court, 597

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

^      HELD :  1. Section  30(ii) of  the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and  Rent Control) Act, 1960 has to be sturck down as violative  of   Art.  14   of  the  Constitution  since  the distinction made  by it  between the tenant of a residential building and  the tenant  of a  non-residential building and that based  on rent  paid by  the respective  tenants has no reasonable nexus  to the object of the Act which is aimed at regulating the  conditions of tenancy, controlling the rents and preventing  unreasonable  eviction  of  tenants  of  all residential and  nonresidential buildings.  [606 D; 602 G-H; 603 A]      To say  that a  non-residential building  is  different from a  residential building  is merely to say what is self- evident and  means nothing.  It has  not been  shown in  the instant case  that the  tenants of non-residential buildings are in  a disadvantageous  position as compared with tenants of residential  buildings and,  therefore, they need greater protection. Tenants  of both kinds of buildings equally need the protection of the beneficient provision of the Act. [604 C-D]      2.  By   one  stroke  s.  30(ii)  denies  the  benefits conferred  by   the  Act   on  all  tenants  to  tenants  of residential buildings  fetching a  rent in  excess  of  four hundred  rupees.  While  the  tenant  of  a  non-residential building is  protected, whether  the rent  is rupees  fifty, five hundred  or five  thousand per  month, a  tenant  of  a residential building  is protected  if the  rent  is  rupees fifty, but  not if  it is  five hundred or five thousand per month. It  cannot be  said that  the tenant of a residential building paying  a rent  of rupees  five hundred  is able to protect himself  better than the tenant of a non-residential building paying a rent of rupees five thousand per month, or that the tenant of a residential building who pays a rent of rupees five  hundred  per  month  is  not  in  need  of  any statutory protection. [602 E-G]      3.  It  cannot  be  pretended  that  the  exclusion  of tenants, who  pay higher  rent, from  the purview of the Act will  help  to  protect  tenants  belonging  to  the  weaker sections of  the community.  It is  one thing  to  say  that tenants belonging  to the weaker sections of the people need protection, and  an altogether  different thing  to say that denial of  protection to  tenants paying  higher rents  will protect the  weaker sections  of the society. Inconsistently enough the tenants of 598 non-residential buildings, who are in a position to pay much higher  rents   than  those  in  occupation  of  residential buildings can  ever pay,  are  afforded  protection  by  the impugned provision while the latter paying rent in excess of rupees four hundred are left high and dry. [604 F-H; 605 A]      Raval &  Co. v.  Ramachandran,  [1974]  2  S.C.R.  629, distinguished.      4.  A  provision  which  was  perfectly  valid  at  the commencement of  the Act  could in  course  of  time  become discriminatory and  liable to  challenge on  the  ground  of unconstitutionality and  struck down on that basis. Whatever jurisidiction there  might have  been in 1973 when s. 30(ii) was amended  by imposing a ceiling of rupees four hundred on rent payable  by tenants of residential buildings to entitle them to  seek the protection of the Act, the passage of time has made the ceiling utterly unreal. There has been enormous multifold  increase   of  rents   throughout  the   country, particularly in urban areas. It is common knowledge that the accommodation which  one could have possibly for rupees four

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

hundred per  month in  1973 will  today cost  at least  five times more. In these days of universal day-to-day escalation of rentals any ceiling such as that imposed by s. 30(ii) can only be  considered to be totally artificial and irrelevant. [605 A-D]      Motor General  Traders  v.  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh, [1984] 1 S.C.C. 222, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  :  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  Nos. 13732/83, 5226/82, 754/83, 1117, 13999, 14101, 17189, 11226, and 12783/85.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)      M.C. Bhandare, K.K. Mani, Mohan Katarki, Prem Malhotra, S.G. Sambandam,  A. Subba Rao, S. Srinivasan, Mahabir Singh, M.C. Verma,  M.A. Krishnamurthy  and  K.L.  Taneja  for  the Petitioners.      B. Padmanabhan,  A.T.M. Sampath,  R.N.  Keshwani,  K.P. Gopala  Krishnan,   N.  Doraikannan,   A.V.   Rangam,   C.S. Vaidyanathan, Ms. Lily Thomas, Ms. Baby Krishnan, P. 599 Jayaraman, V. Balachandran, K. Swami and Mohan Parasaran for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. The  question raised  in all these writ petitions  is whether  sec. 30(ii)  of the  Tamil  Nadu Buildings  (Lease   and   Rent   Control)   Act,   1960   is constitutionally valid.  This  provision  excepts  from  the application of  the Act  "any residential  building or  part thereof occupied  by any one tenant if the monthly rent paid by him  in respect  of that  building or  part exceeds  four hundred rupees."  The argument  is that  though the  Act  is designed to  apply generally  to all  residential  and  non- residential  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  re- issued with  slight modifications in 1945 as the Madras Rent Control Order  1945 and the Madras Non-Residential Buildings Rent Control  Order 1945. They were repealed and replaced by the Madras  Buildings (Lease  and Rent  Control) Act,  1946. This Act  also was later repealed and replaced by the Madras Buildings (Lease  and Rent  Control) Act,  1949. The present Act, the  Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was  enacted in  1960 repealing  and replacing the 1949 Act. Upto  the time of enactment of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) 600 Act, 1960, no exception was made from the purview of the Act in respect  of any  class of residential and non-residential

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

buildings based  on the  rent fetched  by the  buildings. By sec. 30(ii)  for the  first time, the 1960 Act excepted from the application  of  the  Act  residential  buildings  which fetched a rent of more than rupees two hundred and fifty per month and  non-residential buildings which fetched a rent of more than  rupees four  hundred per  month as entered in the property register or assessment book of the municipality. In 1961, this  provision was amended by Act 20 of 1961 so as to make the  exception applicable  to either a building or part thereof and  on the  basis of  the actual  rent paid  by the tenant and  not on  the basis of the rental value as entered in  the   property  register   or  assessment  book  of  the municipality.  In   1964,  the  provision  relating  to  the exception made  in the  case  of  non-residential  buildings fetching a  rent of  more than rupees four hundred per month was deleted, with the result that tenants of non-residential buildings were  entitled to  the protection  afforded by the Act irrespective  of  the  rent  paid  by  them.  Thereafter pursuant to the recommendation made by a Committee appointed by the  Government of  Tamil Nadu  in 1969,  sec. 30(ii) was further amended by Act 23 of 1973 by substituting the figure rupees four hundred for the figure of rupees two hundred and fifty in  that provision.  It is the vires of this provision as it now stands, that is in question before us.      The long  title of  the Act  is "An  Act to  amend  and consolidate the  law  relating  to  the  regulation  of  the letting of residential and non-residential buildings and the control of  rents of  such buildings  and the  prevention of unreasonable eviction  of tenants  therefrom in the State of Tamil Nadu."  The Preamble  to  the  Act  similarly  recites "Whereas it  is expedient  to amend  and consolidate the law relating to the regulation of the letting of residential and non-residential 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 601 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  non- residential 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 payable  to the landlord in respect of the building before the  Controller in  certain  situations.  Section  10 provides  for  and  enumerates  the  grounds  upon  which  a landlord  may   seek  eviction  of  his  tenant  before  the Controller. Section  14 provides  for recovery of possession of a  building bona-fide required by a landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be otherwise carried out or for the demolition  of  the  building  and  construction  of  a  new building. Section  15 enables  the tenant  to re-occupy  the building vacated  by him to enable the landlord to carry out repairs after  such repairs  are carried  out or  after  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

stipulated time  if repairs  are not  carried out within the time. Section  16 is a provision corresponding to sec. 15 in respect of  a building vacated for the purpose of demolition and construction.  Section  17  prohibits  a  landlord  from interferring with  the amenities  enjoyed by  a  tenant  and empowers the  Controller to  give appropriate  relief  where such amenities  are interferred  with. Section  21 prohibits the  conversion  of  a  residential  building  into  a  non- residential building  except with  the permission in writing of the Controller. Section 22 makes provisions for effecting repairs to  a building  where the landlord fails to make the necessary repairs.  Thus we  see so far, that the scheme and structure,  the   policy  and   the  plan  of  the  Act,  as perceivable from these provisions, are unmistakably aimed at regulating the  conditions of tenancy, Controlling the rents and preventing  unreasonable  eviction  of  tenants  of  all residential   and   non-residential   buildings.   For   the advancement of  these objects,  tenants  are  invested  with certain  rights  and  landlords  are  subjected  to  certain obligations. These  rights and obligations, for example, the right of  a tenant  not to  be evicted  and the  prohibition against  a   landlord  from  seeking  eviction  except  upon specified grounds, the right of a tenant 602 not to  pay  rent  in  excess  of  the  fair  rent  and  the obligation of a landlord not to demand such excess rent, the right of  a tenant to obtain a receipt for the actual amount of rent and advance paid by him and the right of a tenant to enjoy and the obligation of a landlord not to interfere with the enjoyment  of the  amenities previously  enjoyed by  the tenant, are  rights and  obligations which,  in  any  modern civilised  society,   attach  themselves   to  tenants   and landlords of  all buildings, residential or non-residential, low-rent  or  high-rent.  They  are  not  rights  which  are peculiarly  capable   of  enjoyment  by  occupants  of  non- residential  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 non- residential 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 Rs. 50, Rs. 500 or Rs. 5000 per month, a tenant of a  residential building  is protected  if the rent is Rs. 50, but  not if it is Rs. 500 or Rs. 5000 per month. Does it mean that the tenant of a residential building paying a rent of Rs. 500 is better able to protect himself than the tenant of a  non-residential building paying a rent of Rs. 5000 per month? Does  it  mean  that  the  tenant  of  a  residential building who pays a rent of Rs. 500 per month is not in need of any  statutory protection?  Is there  any basis  for  the distinction between the tenant of a residential building and the tenant  of a  non-residential building and that based on the rent  paid by  the  respective  tenants?  Is  there  any justification at all for picking out the class of tenants of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

residential buildings  paying  a  rent  of  more  than  four hundred rupees per month to deny them the 603 |rights conferred  generally on  all  tenants  of  buildings residential or  non-residential by the Act? Neither from the Preamble of  the Act  nor from the provisions of the Act has it been  possible for  us even  to discern any basis for the classification made  by s. 30(ii) of the Act. In the counter affidavit filed  by Selvi  A. Raju on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu,  the classification is sought to be justified in the following manner :           "I submit  that the plea of hostile discrimination           and inequality  of treatment is not involved in s.           30. I submit the provision for upper limit of rent           has been  fixed to  afford  protection  to  weaker           sections of  tenants who  pay rent  below Rs.  400           ................These successive  enactments  have           embodied  a   prefectly  rational   principle   of           classification,  and   the  criteria   and   their           application have  been evolved  from time to time,           in accordance  with the  needs of  this  class  of           citizens. There  is also  a clear  and discernible           nexus between  the object  of the  measure and the           differentia  themselves..................I  submit           that  the  classification  based  on  the  purpose           "residential" and  "non-residential" is  based  on           well-recognised   and    rational   principle   of           differentia ...............It  is incorrect to say           that s.  30(ii) of  the Act defeats the purpose of           the Act.  As submitted already, the classification           of the  protected buildings and exempted buildings           on the  basis of  the rent  is  a  reasonable  one           consistent with  the object  of the  Act and it is           not  discriminatory.   As  submitted   already,  a           distinction based  on rent  in an  intelligent one           and has  also got rational relation to the objects           sought to  be achieved.............It  is  equally           incorrect to  say that the provisions 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 604           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  non- residential  buildings   in  the  matter  of  affording  the protection of  the provisions of the Act. To say that a non- residential  building   is  different   from  a  residential building is  merely to  say what  is self-evident  and means nothing. Tenants of both kinds of buildings equally need the protection of  the beneficent  provisions  of  the  Act.  No

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

attempt has  been made  to show  that the  tenants  of  non- residential buildings  are in  a disadvantageous position as compared  with   tenants  of   residential   buildings   and therefore, they  need greater protection. There is and there can be  no whisper to that effect. To illustrate by analogy, it is not enough to say that man and woman are different and therefore, they need not be paid equal wages even if they do equal work. The counter affidavit has repeatedly referred to the weaker  sections of  the people and stated that in order to protect  the weaker sections of the people, a distinction has been  made between  them and those who are in a position to pay  higher rent.  It is  difficult to understand how the exclusion of tenants who pay higher rent from the protection afforded by  the Act  will help to protect tenants belonging to the  weaker sections of the community. It is one thing to say that  tenants belonging  to the  weaker sections  of the community need  protection and an altogether different thing to say  that denial  of protection  to tenants paying higher rents will  protect the  weaker sections  of the  community. Further the  distinction suggested in the counter appears to be quite  antipathic to  the actual  provision because as we pointed out earlier, there is no such ceiling in the case of tenants of  non-residential buildings and therefore a tenant of a  non-residential building who is in a position to pay a rent of  Rs. 5000  per month  is afforded full protection by the Act, whereas, inconsistently enough, the 605 tenant of  a residential building who pays a rent of Rs. 500 is left  high and dry. It certainly cannot be pretended that the provision  is intended to benefit the weaker sections of the people  only. We  must also  observe here  that whatever justification there may have been in 1973 when s. 30(ii) was amended by  imposing a ceiling of Rs. 400 on rent payable by tenants of residential buildings to entitle them to seek the protection of  the Act,  the passage  of time  has made  the ceiling utterly  unreal. We  are entitled  to take  judicial notice of  the enormous  multifold increase of rents through out the  country, particularly  in urban areas. It is common knowledge today  that the accommodation which one could have possibly got  for Rs.  400 per month in 1973 will today cost at least  five times  more. In  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 or           part  thereof  occupied  by  any  tenant,  if  the           monthly rent paid by him exceeds Rs. 250. Here the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

         object of  the legislature  clearly was  that  the           protection of the beneficent provisions of the Act           should be  available only  to small tenants paying           rent not 606           exceeding Rs.  250 per month as they belong to the           weaker section  of the  community and  really need           protection  against   exploitation  by   rapacious           landlords. Those who can afford to pay higher rent           would ordinarily  be well  to do  people and  they           would not be so much in need of protection and can           without much difficulty look after themselves." |These  observations  were  made  in  1974  soon  after  the amendment of  the Act in 1973. They were made in a different context and  not in  the context of a challenge to the vires of the provisions as violative of Art. 14. As we pointed out earlier, the  argument based  on protection  of  the  weaker sections of  the community is entirely inconsistent with the protection given to tenants of non-residential buildings who are in  a position  to pay  much higher rents than the rents which those  who are  in occupation of residential buildings can ever  pay. We  are, therefore,  satisfied  that  section 30(ii) of  the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960  has to  be struck down as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. A writ will issue declaring sec. 30(ii) as unconstitutional. P.S.S.                                    Petitions allowed. 607