Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1961 Supreme(SC) 169

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17th April, 1961
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
S. P. Jinadathappa, Petitioner
Versus
R. P. Sharma and others, Respondents.
Petn. No. 71 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar and S. J. S. Fernandez, Advocates, for Petitioner; Mr. B. R. L. Iyengar, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1; M/s. R. Gopalakrishnan and T. M. Sen, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.

Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.J.S.FERDNANDEZ, S.K.VENKATARANGA IYENGAR, T.M.SEN

A provision that empowers an authority to select a tenant for a vacant house does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the owner's right to property if it serves a public purpose, provides safeguards to ensure that an unsuitable person is not chosen as a tenant, and does not enable discrimination between owners.

Headnote:
MYSORE HOUSE RENT AND ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1951 - S. 3(3)(a) - CONSTITUTIONALITY - REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON RIGHT TO PROPERTY - PUBLIC PURPOSE - SUITABILITY OF TENANT - GUIDANCE FOR SELECTION OF TENANT - ART. 14.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of S. 3(3)(a) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951, which empowered an authority to select a tenant for a vacant house, arguing that it imposed an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental right to property under Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that S. 3(3)(a) of the Act did not impose an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to property. It reasoned that the Act was necessary to regulate the letting of houses and to control rent and eviction in light of the scarcity of housing. The Court also found that the provision for the Controller to select a tenant was reasonable as it served a public purpose of providing accommodation to people in need and that ample safeguards were provided to ensure that an unsuitable person was not chosen as a tenant.
Issues: 1. Whether S. 3(3)(a) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951, imposed an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's right to property under Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 2. Whether the provision for the Controller to select a tenant was arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act was necessary to regulate the letting of houses and to control rent and eviction in light of the scarcity of housing. 2. The provision for the Controller to select a tenant was reasonable as it served a public purpose of providing accommodation to people in need. 3. Ample safeguards were provided to ensure that an unsuitable person was not chosen as a tenant, including the right to appeal to the District Judge and the High Court. 4. The provision did not enable any discrimination being made between one owner and another, and therefore, it did not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the challenge to the Act was ill-founded.

Judgment

SARKAR, J. : This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution raises a question of the constitutional validity of S. 3(3)(a) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 (Mysore Act XXX of 1951). Shortly put, that provision enables an authority set up by the Act to select any Government, local authority, public institution, officer of a government, local authority or public institution or any other person as the tenant of a vacant house. Under the Act the owner is bound to let the premises to the tenant so selected. The petitioner, for whom a tenant had been selected under this provision, challenges its validity on the ground that it puts an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental right to property under Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and is outside the protection of Cl. (5) of that article.

2. The petitioner had a building in respect of which he had made some sort of arrangement with one Misri Lal for the making of certain alterations in it and for letting it thereafter to him for the purpose of a boarding house. He later gave a notice as required by S. 3(2)(a) of the act to respondent No. 2, the Controller, who had the authority under S. 3(3)(a) to select a tenant, that the house had become vacant. Thereupon, respondent No. 2 considered applications for the tenancy of the house of which there were two. One was from Misri Lal mentioned above and the other was from respondent No. 1, who was a private individual carrying on business of a boarding house keeper. Respondent No. 2 selected respondent No. 1 as the person to whom the house should be let by the petitioner. He fixed the rent at Rs. 350/- per month which was the rent demanded by the petitioner. There does not appear to have been any specification of the terms of the tenancy and no question as to such terms arises in this case.

3. The petitioner was dissatisfied with this decision as he wanted that the premises should be let to Misri Lal, and appealed to the District Judge under S. 15 of the Act. The District Judge affirmed the decision of respondent No. 2. The petitioner then went up in revision to the High Court under S. 17 of the Act but the High Court refused to interfere. Before the District Judge and the High Court the petitioner had contended that Misri Lal was a more suitable tenant than respondent No. 1. But such contention was rejected. Having failed in the High Court he has now challenged the Act itself by the present petition.

4. The only question is whether S. 3(3)(a) imposed an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner s right to property. The validity of no other part of the Act has been challenged in this petition. The provision challenged is in these words:-

Section 3(3)(a). On receipt of the intimation under sub-sec. (2), the Controller shall, taking into consideration any representation made by the landlord and after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, select the State Government or the Central Government or the Government of any other State in India, or any local authority or any educational or other public institution or any officer of any Government, authority or institution, aforesaid, or any other person (hereinafter referred to as the allottee), to be inducted as a tenant in the house and direct the landlord by a written order (hereinafter referred to as the allotment order ) to let the house to such allottee at such rent as shall be specified in the allotment order and to deliver possession of the house to the allottee on such date as shall be specified in the said order:

Provided that before making an allotment order in favour of any authority or person, other than the State government, the Central Government or the Government of any State in India or a local authority, the Controller shall consider any representation of the landlord about the suitability of the proposed tenant and shall not allot the house to any person who, in the opinion of the Controller, is an unsuitable tenant:

5. The petitioner does n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document