http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: S. M. MAHENDRU AND COMPANY ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/12/1984

BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. PATHAK, R.S. MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  270            1985 SCR  (2) 416  1985 SCC  (1) 395        1984 SCALE  (2)961

ACT:      Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu   Act  18 of  1960)-S. 29-Scope of-Government of Tamil Nadu  issued Notification  No. 11(2)  O 6060/76  dated 21st November,  1976 exempting buildings owned inter alia by co-operative societies from all the provisions of the Act 18 of  1960-Validity   of  notification   held  valid  and  not violative of Art 14 of the Constitution

HEADNOTE:       In  exorcise of  the powers conferred by section 29 of the Tamil  Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960), the Government of Tamil Nadu by a Notification No. II (2) H. O. 6060/76 dated 21-t November, 1976 exempted  the- Buildings  owned, inter  alia by all the co-operative societies  from all  the provisions of the said Act. Since  the protection available to the petitioners, who wore tenants   in  a building belonging to respondent No. 2, an Apex Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,  1961 and  covered by  the said notification. had been withdrawn and since the petitioners were facing the imminent prospect  of  suffering  eviction  decrees  against them, they  filed the present writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity  of the impugned notification on the ground that  the same  was  violative  of  Art.  14  of  the Constitution. The petitioners contended that treating the  buildings  owned by  all the  co-operative societies in the State  of  Tamil  Nadu  as  falling  into  one  group  while exercising the  power under  sec. 29 of the Act will have to be  regarded  as  a  rational  classification  based  on  an intelligible differentia  but the  differentia on which this classification was  based had  no excuse  with the object of curbing the  two  evils  of  rack-renting  and  unreasonable eviction for  which the  power to  grant exemption  had been conferred upon the State Government under sec. 29 of the Act and since  the impugned notification did not satisfy be test of nexus  the exemption  granted to all such buildings could not  be   sustained  and   Will  have   to  be  regarded  as discriminatory and  violative of  Art. 14.  In  other  words Counsel urged  that there  was and  is  up  warrant  OF  any presumption that  co-operative societies  qua landlords will

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

not indulge  in rack-renting  or will not unreasonably evict tenants; in  fact they  would not  be different  from  other private landlords  so far  as the  two evils  sought  to  be curbed by  the Act are concerned and therefore Counsel urged that the  exemption granted  could not  be  said  to  be  in conformity with  the guidance afforded by the scheme and the previsions of the Act. 417       Dismissing the petitions, ^       HELD:  It is  true that under sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies  Act the  very object  of  every  co- operative society  registered thereunder is the promotion of economic interests  of its  members and  sec. 62  of the Act provides for  payment of  dividends on shares to its members as also  for payment  of  bonus  to  its  members  and  paid employees. But  these aspects  of a  co-operative society do not mean  that  it  could  be  likened  to  any  other  body undertaking similar activities on commercial lines and to do so would be to miss the very basis on which the co-operative movement was  launched and  propagated and  has been  making progress in  the country  during the  last several  decades. Indisputably, co-operative  societies which  carry on  their activities in  various fields  do  so  for  the  purpose  of attaining the social and economic welfare of a large section of the  people belonging  to the  middle-class and the rural class  by  encouraging  thrift,  self-help  and  mutual  aid amongst them,  especially by eliminating the middle-man. But the object  of promoting  the  economic  interrupts  of  the members  has   to  be  achieved  by  following  co-operative principles where  the profit  motive will be restricted to a reasonable level unlike other commercial bodies where sky is the limit  so  far  as  their  desire  to  earn  profits  is concerned. Sections  4 and  62 of the Act and Rule 46 of the Rules make  it clear  that in  the matter of distribution of profits by way of payment of dividend to members and payment of bonus  to members  as well as paid employees restrictions have been  placed by  law and  the same  is maintained  at a reasonable level and considerable portion of the net profits is apportioned  and required  to be carried to various kinds of funds,  like co-operative  development fund, co-operative education fund,  reserve  fund  etc.  In  fact  it  is  such statutory appropriations  and  restrictions  on  payment  of dividends  and   bonus  which   differentiates  co-operative societies from  other bodies  undertaking similar activities on commercial  lines and  therefore, the buildings belonging to such  co-operative societies  are substantially different from the  buildings owned  by private  landlords. Further it has to  be appreciated  that these  statutory provisions are applicable to  all types of co-operative societies specified in Rule 14 whatever be their nature or functions. The profit element being maintained at a reasonable level by provisions of law in all types of co-operative societies there is every justification  for   the  assumption  that  no  co-operative society  will   indulge  in   rack-renting  or  unreasonable eviction. In this view of the matter if the State Government came to  the conclusion  that in  the case  of  co-operative societies  there  being  no  apprehension  that  they  would indulge in  either of  these two  evils exemption  from  the provisions of  the Tamil  Nadu Act  No. 18 of 1960 should be granted  in  favour  of  buildings  belonging  to  such  co- operative societies  it  will  have  to  be  regarded  is  a legitimate exercise  of the power conferred on it under sec. 29 of the Act the same being in conformity with the guidance afforded by  the preamble  and provisions of the Act in that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

behalf. [422D-5; 424C-G]       Besides,  on the  factual side  of the issue the facts and circumstances put forward by the State Government in its counter affidavit  which have gone unchallenged clearly show that  the   differentia  on   the   basis   of   which   the classification was  made had  a clear  nexus with the object with which  the power  to grant exemption has been conferred upon the  State and therefore the impugned notification will have to be regarded as valid.                                                     [425E-F] 418

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  W. P.  NO. 893  and 967 of 1979 and W. P. No, 295 of 1980       Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India        Dr.   Y.  S.   Chitale,  and  Vineet  Kumar  for  the petitioners m W. P. NOS. 823 & 967 of 1979.       A  . T.  M. Sampat  and  P.  N.  Ramnalingam  for  the Petitioners in W. P. No. 295/80.          Anil Devan, K. S. Ramamurthy, V. M. Tarkunde, M. K. D.  Namboodry  and S. BalaKrishnan for the respondents in W. P. Nos. 893 & 967 of 1979 and W. P. No 295 of 1980.       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by          TULZAPURKAR, J. By these three writ petitions filed under Art.  32 of  the Constitution the petitioners, who are tenants in a building belonging to respondent No. 2 Society, have challenged the validity of the exemption granted to all buildings owned  by all  Co-operative Societies in the State of Tamil Nadu from all the provisions of the T. N. Act 18 of 1960 under sec. 29 thereof.       The facts giving rise to the aforesid challenge lie in a narrow  compass. The  petitioners are tenants in different portions on  the ground  floor of  the building bearing Door No. 188,  Mount Road,  Madras belonging to second respondent which is an Apex Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies  Act, 1961. It appears that the property was purchased  in 1961  by the  second respondent  from  its previous owners  M/s. Mohammed Ibrahim and Company, and soon thereafter  the  second  respondent  applied  to  the  State Government under sec. 29 of the Act and sought exemption for it from  all the  provisions of  the Act  But on hearing the objections raised  by the  petitioners and other tenants the application was  rejected. Respondent  No- 2  thereupon made two attempts  to evict the petitioners from their respective premises. The  first was on the ground that the premises are required by  it for  its own  occupation but at the end of a long drawn  out litigation respondent No. 2 failed to obtain possession; the  second was  on the  ground that it required the premises  for demolition and new construction and it was during the  tendency  of  this  litigation  that  the  State Government issued  its Notification  No. II (2) H.O. 6060/76 dated 21.11 1976 under sec. 29 419 of  the  Act  whereby  the  State  Government  exempted  the buildings A  belonging to  all Co-operative Societies in the State of  Tamil Nadu  from all the provisions of the Act. On the issuance  of this Notification respondent No. 2 Withdrew its eviction petitions preferred on the ground of demolition and new construction and served notices upon the petitioners under sec.  106 of  the Transfer of Property Act terminating their tenancies  and filed  civil suits  against them in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

City Civil  Court, Madras  for recovery of vacant possession of  the   premises  in   their  respective  occupation.  The petitioners have  filed their  written statements  and suits are awaiting  trial. But  since the  protection available to them has  been withdrawn  the  petitioners  arc  facing  the imminent prospect of suffering eviction decrees against them and therefore,  have approached this Court by means of these writ petitions  challenging the  constitutional validity  of the Notification  in question of the ground that the same is violative of  Art. 14  of the Constitution and have obtained stay of further proceedings in the suits.       The  impugned Notification  dated 21st  November, 1976 runs thus:       "No.  II (2)  H.O. 6060176-In  exercise of  the powers conferred by  Sec. 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)  Act 1960  (Tamil Nadu  Act 18  of 1960),  the Government of Tamil Nadu hereby exempts the. buildings owned by  all   Government   Undertakings   including   Government Companies registered  under the  Indian Companies  Act  1956 Central Act I of 1956) and by all the Co-operative Societies from all the provisions of the said Act."       As was done in the earlier case dealing with the total exemption granted  in favour  of all  buildings belonging to public religious  trusts and  public  charities,  here  also Counsel for  the petitioners fairly stated that treating the buildings owned  by all  the Co-operative  Societies in  the State  of  Tamil  Nadu  as  falling  into  one  group  while exercising the  power under  sec. 29 of the Act will have to be  regarded  as  a  rational  classification  based  on  an intelligible differentia  inasmuch as Co-operative Societies while carrying  on their  activities in  various  fields  do serve a  great public  purpose of  attaining the  social and economic welfare  of a large section of the people belonging to the  middle class  and the  rural  class  by  encouraging thrift,  selfhelp   and  mutual  aid  amongst  them  and  by eliminating the middle 420 man and  as such  do form  a distinct  group different  from other bodies  undertaking similar  activities on  commercial lines  and  as  such  buildings  belonging  to  Co-operative Societies may need special or preferential treatment in some matters like  registration of  documents, payment  of  stamp duty, recovery  of their dues etc. at the hands of the State Government but according to Counsel the differentia on which this classification  is based  has no  nexus with the object with which  the powers to grant exemption has been conferred upon the State Government under sec. 29 of the Act and since the impugned Notification does not satisfy the test of nexus the exemption  granted  to  all  such  buildings  cannot  be sustained and will have to be regarded as discriminatory and violative of Art. 14.       By way of elaborating the aforesaid contention Counsel for the  petitioners urged  that the  Act  was  put  on  the statute book  for the  purpose of  curbing the  two evils of rack-renting and  unreasonable   eviction and that the power to grant exemption could as per the guidance afforded by the scheme all  the provisions  of the  Act be  exercised by the State Government  ill cases  where the mischief sought to be remedied by the Act is neither prevalent nor apprehended are in cases  where an  inflexible application  of  the  law  is likely to  result in  undue hardship  or in  cases where the beneficial  provision of the Act is likely to be or is being abused by  persons for  whom it is intended and according to Counsel the  exemption in  favour of the buildings belonging to all  Co-operative Societies  in the  State of  Tamil Nadu

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

does not  conform to such guidance. Counsel pointed out that Rule 11  of the  Rules  made  under  the  T.N.  Co-operative Societies Act 1961 specifies as many as 13 different classes of Co-operative  Societies, such  as farming society, credit society, housing  society, marketing  society etc.  and  the impugned Notification  indiscriminately and  unconditionally exempts all buildings belonging to all types of Co-operative Societies with  no regard  to  their  nature  or  functions- Further, according  to sec.  4  of  the  T.N.  Co  operative Societies Act the very object of every Co-operative  Society is the promotion of the economic interest of its Members and sec. 62  of that  Act  provides  not  only  for  payment  of dividends o  n shares  to members  but also  for payment  of bonus to members and paid-employees of the Society. Hence it is unrealistic to assume that Co-operative Societies are not or will not indulge in rack-renting or unreason  eviction or will be ideal landlords whose tenants will not be in need of any statutory protection. Tn other  words Counsel urged that there was and is no warrant of any 421 presumption that  Co-operative Societies  qua landlords will not   indulge in rack-renting or will not unreasonably evict tenants; in  fact they  would not  be different  from  other private landlords  so far  as the  two evils  sought  to  be curbed by  the Act are concerned and therefore Counsel urged that the  exemption granted  could not  be  said  to  be  in conformity with  the guidance afforded by the scheme and the provisions of the Act.       In support of the above contention Counsel relied upon a decision  of this  Court in  Baburao Shantaram More v. The Bombay Housing  Board and Anr.(1) where the validity of sec. 3-A of  the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1951 was challenged as infringing Art.  14. It was urged in that case that sec. 3-A exempted lands and buildings belonging to the Bombay Housing Board from  the operation of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 while lands  and  buildings  belonging  to  numerous  Co-operative Housing Societies,  which were  similarly situated and whose object was  also to  solve housing  problems, were not given any exemption  from the  operation of  the Rent  Act and the result was  that while  tenants of  the Co-operative Housing Societies were fully protected against unreasonable eviction and enhancement  of rent,  the tenants  of the Housing Board were denied  such protection  and  therefore  sec.  3-A  was violative of  Art. 14.  The contention  was negatived on the ground that  the Housing  Board and  the Cooperative Housing Societies incorporated  under the  Cooperative Societies Act were not  similarly situated  and in  that behalf this Court observed thus:             "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      incorporated  body   brought  into  existence  for  the      purpose of framing housing schemes to solve the problem      of acute  shortage of  housing in  Bombay. There are no      share-holders interested  in the  distribution  of  any      profits. 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 profits      making motive.  No material  has been  placed before us      which may remotely be regarded as suggesting, much less      proving, that Co-operative Housing (1) [1954] S.C.R. 572 422      Societies or  their members  stand  similarly  situated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

vis-a-vis the Board and its tenants."   Relying  upon  the  above  observations  Counsel  for  the petitioners submitted  that this  Court had  recognised  the position  that   various  activities   are   undertaken   by Cooperative Societies  with the  motive   of earning profits and as  such there  was and  is no warrant for treating them differently from  other private  landlords in the context of two evils sought to be remedied by the Act and in this sense the exemption granted does not satisfy the test or nexus and therefore the same infringes Art. 14.      The above  contention so  presented,  though  seemingly plausible, will,  on deeper scrutiny, be found to be without substance and  we shall  presently indicate  our reasons for saying so.  It is  true that  under sec. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies  Act the  very object  of  every  Co- operative Society  registered thereunder is the promotion of economic interests  of its  members and  s. 62  of  the  Act provides for  payment of  dividends on shares to its members as also  for payment  of  bonus  to  its  members  and  paid employees. But  these aspects  of a  Co-operative Society do not mean  that it  could  be  linkened  to  any  other  body undertaking similar activities on commercial lines and to do so would  be to miss the very basis on which the cooperative movement was  launched and  propagated and  has been  making progress in  the country  during the  last several  decades. Indisputably, Co-operative  Societies which  carry on  their activities in  various fields  do  50  for  the  purpose  of attaining the social and economic welfare of a large section of the  people belonging  to the  middle-class and the rural class  by  encouraging  thrift,  self-help  and  mutual  aid amongst them,  especially by eliminating the middle-man. But the object  of  promoting  the  economic  interests  of  the members  has   to  be   achieved  by  following  cooperative principles where  the profit  motive will be restricted to a reasonable level  unlike other  commercial bodies where sky‘ is the  limit so  far as  their desire  to earn  profits  is concerned. Sections  4  and  62  of  the  T.N.  Co-operative Societies Act  and Rule  46 of the Rules made under that Act bring out this aspect of the matter very eloquently. Section 4 itself  states that a society, which has as its object the promotion of  economic interest of its members in accordance With cooperatives  principle, may, subject to the provisions of the  Act be  registered thereunder  In  other  words  the promotion of  economic interests  of the  members has  to be achieved in  accordance with co-operative principles and the realisation thereof  has been made subject to the provisions of the 423 Act. Section  62 which  deals with  disposal of  net profits puts A  restrictions on the disbursement of such profits and it runs as follows:            "62.  Disposal  of  net  profits  (  1  )  (a)  A      registered society  shall out  of its  net  profits  as      declared by  the Registrar for the purposes of this Act      in respect  of any  co-operative year  contribute  such      amount not exceeding,-       (i)  five percent  of  the  net  profits  to  the  co- operative development fund; and       (ii)  two per  cent of  the net  profits  to  the  co- operative education fund, as may be specified in the Rules.       (b)  Such contribution  shall be made within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.                2) The balance of the net profits so declared shall be appropriated-           firstly, for being credited to a reserve fund, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

amount so  credited being not less than twenty per cent, but not exceeding thirty per cent, af the net profits;           secondly, towards contribution to such other funds and at such rates as may be specified in the Rules:           thirdly, towards payment of dividends on shares to members at such rate as may be specified in the Rules;            fourthly, towards payment of bonus to members and paid employees  of the  registered society  at such rate and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Rules;            fifthly, towards contribution to such other funds and such rates as may be specified in the by-laws;             sixthly, towards contribution to the common good fund at  such rate  not exceeding  ten per  cent of  the net profits as may be specified in the Rules; and 424              seventhly,  the remainder,  if any,  of the net profits being credited to the reserve fund." Rule 46  prescribes the  limits on  payment of  dividends on shares to  its members  as also  on payment  of bonus to its members and  paid employees.  Sub-Rule (3)  of Rule  46 says that the  payment of  dividends on  shares to  members by  a Society shall  not exceed 6 percent per annum on the paid up value of  each share;  provided that  the Government  may by special or  general order  permit any  Society or  class  of Societies to  pay dividend at the rate exceeding 6 per cent. Similarly under Sub-Rules (4) and (5) restrictions have  been  placed on  payment of  bonus to  members and  to paid employees. In  view of these provisions it will appear clear that in  the matter  of distribution  of profits  by way  of payment of  dividend to  members and  payment of‘  bonus  to members as  well as  paid employees  restrictions have  been placed by  law and  the same  is maintained  at a reasonable level  and  considerable  portion  of  the  net  profits  is apportioned and  required to  be carried to various kinds of funds,  like   cooperative  development  fund,  co-operative education fund,  reserve  fund  etc.  In  fact  it  is  such statutory appropriations  and  restrictions  on  payment  of dividends  and   bonus  which   differentiates  Co-operative Societies from  other bodies  undertaking similar activities on commercial  lines and  therefore, the buildings belonging to such  Co-operative Societies  are substantially different from the  buildings owned  by private landlords. Further, it has to  be appreciated  that these  statutory provisions are applicable to  all types of Co-operative Societies specified in Rule 14 whatever be their nature or functions. The profit element being maintained at a reasonable level by provisions of law in all types of Co-operative Societies there is every justification for the assumption that no cooperative society will indulge  in rack-renting  or unreasonable  eviction. In this view  of the matter if the State Government came to the conclusion that  in the case of Co operative Societies there being no  apprehension that  they would indulge in either of these two  evils exemption  from the  provisions of the T.N. Act No.  18 of 1960 should be granted in favour of buildings belonging to  such Co-operative Societies it will have to be regarded as  a legitimate exercise of the power conferred on it under  s. 29 of the Act the same being in conformity with the guidance  afforded by the preamble and provisions of the Act in that behalf.       Besides, on the factual sides of the issue it has been specifically averred  in  the  counter  affidavit  filed  on behalf of the State Govern 425 ment that  it duly  took note  of the fact that all types of Co-operative Societies  functioning in  Madras City  and  at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

several centers throughout the State as a class were engaged in various  kinds of  activities promoting  social  welfare, rural-development and  economic good by providing employment to lacs  of people  and were  doing excellent work by way of implementing one of the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in  Art.  43  of  the  Constitution,  that  several complaints were  received from  these Co operative Societies that they  were facing  problems arising  out of  a  literal application of  the T.N. Act 18 of 1960, particularly in the matter of  securing accommodation in their own buildings for carrying on  their activities  and that they got involved in long drawn out litigations in that behalf and requesting for an exemption  from the  provisions of  the Act  so that they could be  relieved of  the hardships  from which  they  were suffering; it  has been  further averred that the Government also took  note of  the fact  that it  was not  the business activity of  any Co-operative  Society including  even a Co- operative Housing  Society to  purchase  buildings  for  the purpose of letting them out and earning income therefrom and as such  there was  no apprehension  of  indulging  in  rack renting on  their behalf  and that on a consideration of all the relevant  factors the  Government was satisfied that the protection given  to  the  tenants  of  such  buildings,  if withdrawn, would  not result in rack renting or unreasonable eviction and  that the  granting of  exemption to  them  was necessary to relieve them of great hardship lt may be stated that all  these averments  have gone unchallenged and in our view the  facts and  circumstances put  forward by the State Government clearly  show that  the differential on the basis of which  the classification was made had a clear nexus with the object  with which the power to grant exemption has been conferred  upon   the  State   and  therefore  the  impugned Notification will have to be regarded as valid       In  regard to  respondent No. 2 being the Apex Society herein, the additional factors taken into consideration were that out  of its  total share  capital of  13.78 crores  the State Government’s  contribution was  to the  tune of  12.81 crores,  that   the  Government  had  guaranteed  the  loans borrowed by  it for  its working  capital. that  as the apex body it  had membership  of  about  1488  primary  societies (Handloom Weavers  Co-operative Societies and that it had 34 branches and  two godowns  in Madras and was required to pay for its  rented premises  rent at  the rate  of Rs. 2 50 per square foot  while the  tenants of  their own  building were paying rent  at the  rate  of  20  paisa  per  square  feet; respondent No. 2 society was also involved in a long 426  drawn  out litigation  under the provisions of the T.N. Act 18 of  1960 In  other words,  respondent No  2 society was a glaring instance  of undue  hardship being suffered by a Co- operative Society  as a result of the literal application of the Act.  We  are  sure  that  a  large  number  of  similar instances must  have prompted  the State Government to issue the impugned  Notification which  as we have said above will have to be regarded a legitimate exercise of power conferred on the State Government under sec 29 of the Act       Counsel  has of course placed strong reliance upon the observations made  by this Court in Baburao Shantaram’s case (supra) which  have been  quoted above  in  support  of  his contention but  in  our  view  neither  the  ratio  nor  the observations are of any avail to the petitioners. It will be clear at  once that the decision in question is no authority for the  proposition that  exemption from  the provisions of any rent-control  enactment cannot  be granted  in favour of the buildings  owned by Co-operative Societies. the case was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

con concerned with the constitutional validity of sec 3-A of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1951 where-under exemption had been granted  to lands and buildings belonging to the Bombay Housing Board  from the  operation of  the Bombay  Rent Act, 1941 and  its validity  was upheld by this Court. One of the contentions  urged  before  the  Court  was  that  buildings belonging to  Co-operative Housing  Societies in Bombay were similarly situated as the buildings belonging to the Housing Board inasmuch  as the object served by Co-operative Housing Societies and the Housing Board was the same namely, solving the housing  problems of  the city  of Bombay  and even  so, though the  tenants of  Co operative  Housing Societies were fully   protected    against   unreasonable   eviction   and enhancement of  rent, the  tenants  of  Housing  Board  were denied  such   protection  and   therefore  sec.   3-A   was discriminatory and  this contention  was  negatived  by  the Court by  observing that  the Co-operative Housing Societies and their  members were not similarly situated vis-a-vis the Board and  its tenants and while pointing out the difference the Court  stated that  while Cooperative  Housing Societies may earn  profits distributable  among its members there was no question  of the  Housing Board  making any  profits. The Court was  not concerned  with the  question as to whether a similar exemption  if granted  to buildings belonging to Co- operative Societies  would be  valid or  rot. The difference pointed by this Court was sufficient to refute the charge of discrimination levelled  against  the  particular  piece  of legislation (sec. 3-A of the Bombay Housing Boards Act 1951) but it  11  will be fallacious to rely upon this difference for the purpose of 427 striking down  the exemption  granted in favour of buildings of Cooperative  Societies under  another enactment  if  such exemption  is   otherwise  justified   on  the   facts   and circumstances obtaining in regard to such buildings. In fact as  explained  earlier  the  Co-operative  principles  which govern the functioning of these Co-operative Societies put a curb on  their  profit  motive  and  as  pointed  there  are statutory provisions  which maintain their profit element at reasonable level  which  warrant  the  assumption  that  Co- operative Societies  would not  indulge in  rack-renting  or unreasonable eviction  and it  was  in  the  light  of  this position as also after careful study of all relevant factors obtaining in  their case the, State Government was satisfied that the grant of total exemption in favour of the buildings of all  Co-operative Societies  functioning  in  the  entire State was  necessary. The  observations relied  upon  cannot therefore support the Petitioners’ contention.       In  the  result  the  writ  petitions  are  dismissed. Interim orders, if any are vacted. There will be no order as to costs. H.S.K.                                   Petitlons dismissed 428