D. C. Bhatia vs Union Of India - 1994 Supreme(SC) 1039

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1994 Supreme(SC) 1039

M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. B. MAJMUDAR, SUHAS C. SEN
D. C. Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.M.KHANWILKAR, A.S.BHASME, A.SUBBA RAO, A.Subhashini, A.T.RAO, A.V.RANGAM, AJAY SINGH, Arun K.Sinha, ARUN KATHPALIA, ARUN MOHAN, ARUN SHARMA, ASHOK DESAI, ASHOK GROVER, ASHWINI KUMAR, ATUL K.BANDHU, AVADH BIHARI ROHTAGI, B.DIVAN, B.SUNITA RAO, BHARAT SANGAL, CHITRA MARKANDEYA, D.N.GOVARDHAN, D.V.Sehgal, DIVENDER SINGH, DUMARAN, G.Prabhakar, GITA LUTHRA, GOBINDA MUKHOTY, H.K.PURI, H.P.SHARMA, HARDEV SINGH, INDRA MAKWANA, Indu Malhotra, IQBAL BUTT, J.K.SETH, K.C.DUA, K.J.JOHN, K.K.LAHRI, K.K.VENUGOPAL, K.Madhava Reddy, K.N.BHATT, K.PARASARAN ATTORNEY, KAILASH VASUDEV, L.C.AGRAWAL, LALITA KAUSHIK, M.A.KHAN, M.C.DHINGRA, M.K.MICHEL, M.L.Verma, M.P.SHORAVALA, M.T.George, M.VIJAY BHASKAR, M.VIRAPPA, MADAN LOKUR, MADHU MULCHANDANI, MADHU SIKRI, MANOJ VAD, MINAKSHI ARORA, N.N.GOSWAMY, Naresh Bakshi, NIKHIL NAYAR, NILAM SHARMA, P.CHAUDHARY, P.H.Parekh, P.K.JAIN, P.K.PALLI, P.N.Gupta, P.N.PURI, P.S.NARASIMHA, P.VENUGOPAL RAO, PINKY ANAND, PRAMOD AGARWAL, Prashant Bhushan, R.A.PERUMAL, R.MOHAN, R.N.KAPOOR, R.N.SESVANI, R.P.KAPUR, R.P.SHARMA, R.S.RANA, R.VENUGOPAL REDDY, Radha Rangaswamy, RAHUL P.DAVE, RAJIV BAHL, Rajiv Mehta, RAJIV SHARMA, RAJU RAMACHANDRAN, RANJAN MUKHERJEE, RANJIT GHOSAL, RATAN LAL CHAWLA, RAVI KHER, RISHI KESH, ROXNA S.SWAMY, S.A.SHROFF, S.B.Upadhyay, S.GANESH RAO RAO, S.JANANI, S.K.C.PASI, S.K.KULAKARNI, S.K.MEHTA.K.MEHTA, S.K.PURI, S.L.KAKKER, S.M.Sarin, S.P.PANDEY, S.PAREKH, S.SUKUMARAN, SANJAY KAPOOR, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, SHANKAR GOPAL PAGIRE, Shri Narain, SOLI J.SORABJI, SUBODH MARKANDAYA, SUDHIR GUPTA, SUSHMA SURI, T.C.SHARMA, T.V.S.N.Chari, U.N.BACHHAVAT, V.B.PATEL, V.B.SAHARYA, V.C.MAHAJAN, V.J.Francis, V.K.VARMA, V.N.KOURA, V.SHEKHAR, V.SUBRAHMANYAM, VIJAY LAKSHMI MENON, VINOD KUMAR, Y.P.MAHAJAN, YOGESH K.JAIN,

JUDGMENT

SEN, J. This appeal has been heard along with a number of other appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions. Common questions of law have arisen in all these matters relating to interpretation and constitutional validity of Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

2. The Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended by Act No. 52 of 1988 came into effect from 1-12-1988. Section 3(c) of the amended Act provided that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act will not apply to any premises whose monthly rent exceeded Rs 3500.

3. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the newly inserted Section 3(c) of the Act. The appellants writ petition was heard along with a batch of other writ petitions. By a judgment dated 11-2-1991, the Delhi High Court held that Section 3(c) was a valid piece of legislation and did not contravene any of the provisions of the Constitution. Following its judgment in Civil Revision No. 470 of 1981 (Nirmaljit Arora v. Bharat Steel Tubes), it also held that Section 3(c) was prospective and did not affect the cases that were pending on the date it came into operation.

4. The present batch of ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1994 Supreme(SC) 1039

M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. B. MAJMUDAR, SUHAS C. SEND. C. Bhatia – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – Respondent

Cases Referred (9)

M. N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. B. MAJMUDAR, SUHAS C. SEN
D. C. Bhatia – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent