SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 998

2003(7) Supreme 313
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
R.C. Lahoti and Ashok Bhan, JJ.
Common Cause -Appellant
versus
Union of India and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3988-3989 of 2001
Decided on 8-10-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Arvind K. Nigam, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Ms. Shyomila Bakshi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.P. Malhotra, S. Balakrishnan, Sr. Advocates, Hemant Sharma, D.S. Mahra, K.L. Rathee, Ramesh N. Keswani and Ramlal Roy, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
No mandamus can be issued to the Central Government to issue the notification to bring Delhi Rent Act, 1995 into force keeping in view the facts brought on record.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Act, 1995-Non enforcement-Central Government did not notify date of enforcement-Presidential assent was given to Delhi Rent Bill 1994 on 23-8-1995-It was enacted as Delhi Rent Act, 1995 and notified on 23-8-1995, as enacted-Parliament did not fix the date w.e.f. which the Act would come into operation-Trader tenants launched an agitation demanding changes in some of the provisions of the Act-Government constituted an All India Committee to re-examine certain issues concerning deemed rent, registration of tenancies, inheritability of tenancies, eviction etc.-It was finally decided to carry out amendments to the Act before notifying it-Delhi Rent (Amendment) Act, 1997 was drafted and introduced in Rajya Sabha-However, because of workload the Bill could not to be taken up shortly-Writ petition-Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to the Central Government for enforcement of 1995 Act-(No)-Section 5 of General Clauses Act held not applicable.

       Held : From the facts placed before us it cannot be said that Government is not alive to the problem or is desirous of ignoring the will of the Parliament. When the legislature itself had vested the power in the Central Government to notify the date from which the Act would come into force, then, the Central Government is entitled to take into consideration various facts including the facts set out above while considering when the Act should be brought into force or not. No mandamus can be issued to the Central Government to issue the notification contemplated under Section 1(3) of the Act to bring the Act into force, keeping in view the facts brought on record and the consistent view of this Court. (Para 27)

       When the Legislature itself provides that the date of coming into force of the Act would be a date to be notified by the Central Government, Section 5 of the General Clauses Act will have no application. It is plain and evident from the language of the provision. (Para 28)

       

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-Keeping in view the National Housing Policy and for rationalisation of rent laws to give incentive to the growth of the housing in general and rental housing, in particular, and the observation made by this Court in Prabhakaran Nair and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others [1987 (4) SCC 238] to the following effect:

"The laws of landlord and tenant must be made rational, humane, certain and capable of being quickly implemented. Those landlords who have having premises in their control should be induced and encouraged to part with available accommodation for limited periods on certain safeguards which will strictly ensure their recovery when wanted. Men with money should be given proper and meaningful incentives as in some European countries to build houses, tax holidays for new houses can be encouraged. The tenants should also be given protection and security and certain amount of reasonableness in the rent. Escalation of prices in the urban properties, land, materials and houses must be rationally checked. This country very vitally and very urgently requires a National Housing Policy if we want to prevent a major breakdown of law and order and gradual disillusionment of people. After all shelter is one of our fundamental rights. New national housing policy must attract new buildings, encourage new buildings, make available new spaces, rationalise the rent structure and rationalise the rent provisions and bring certain amount of uniformity though leaving scope for sufficient flexibility among the States to adjust such legislation according to its needs. This Court and the High Court should also be relieved of the heavy burdens of this rent litigations. Tier of appeals should be curtailed. Laws must be simple, rational and clear. Tenants are in all cases not the weaker sections. There are those who are weak both among the landlords as well as the tenants. Litigations must come to end quickly. Such new Housing Policy must comprehend the present and anticipate the future. The idea of a National Rent Tribunal on an All India basis with quicker procedure should be examined. This has become an urgent imperative of today s revolution. A fast changing society cannot operate with unchanging law and preconceived judicial attitude."

2. Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (for short the Act ) was enacted by the Parliament. It was meant to be the Model Rent Control Legislation formulated by the Central Government and sent to the States to enable them to carry out necessary amendments to the prevalent rent control laws in the States.

3. The Delhi Rent Bill, 1994 (for short the Bill ) was introduced in the Rajya Sabha 26th August, 1994. It was passed unanimously in the Rajya Sabha on 29th May, 1995. Thereafter it was tabled in the Lok Sabha. Lok Sabha unanimously passed the same on 3rd June, 1995. Presidential assent was given to the Bill on 23rd August, 1995 and the same was accordingly enacted as the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (Act 33 of 1995) and notified on 23rd August, 1995, as enacted. The Parliament did not fix the date w.e.f which the Act would come into operation. It was left to the discretion of the Central Government to notify the date w.e.f. which the Act would come into operation. Section 1(3) of the Act reads:

"(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint."

4. As the Central Government did not notify the date, appellant filed writ petition No.1495 of 1997 in the High Court of Delhi in public interest seeking a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the Union of India to forthwith and without delay issue a notification in the Official Gazette, as contemplated under Section 1(3) of the Act notifying the date on which the said Act shall come into force in its present form.

5. In the written statement filed by the Union of India, it was stated that a section of people, particularly trader tenants, launched an agitation demanding changes in some of




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top