Judgement

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- There is much ado about nothing about these cases. These petitions seek to challenge the vires of S. 14(1)(b) and S. 16(2) as well as incidentally S. 30(ii), Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Tamil Nadu Rent Act) on the ground of being arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. Different petitions deal with different facts. It is not necessary to set these out exhaustively but it would be appropriate to deal with the facts of Writ Petition No. 506 of 1986 as a typical one in order to appreciate the points in issue. In Writ Petition No. 506 of 1986, the respondent landlord on or about 21st of March, 1978 after purchasing the premises No. 95, Thyagaraja Road, T. Nagar, Madras from the erstwhile owner, filed an eviction petition in the court of Small Causes, Madras for eviction of the petitioner herein from the premises where the petitioner had been carrying on a hotel business serving meals etc. for four decades. The grounds in the eviction petition were non-payment of rent under S. 10(2)(1), Tamil Nadu Rent Act, unlawful subletting under S. 10(2)(ii) (a), causing damages to the premises under S. 10(2) (iii) and also for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction under S. 14(1)(b).

2. The learned Judge of the trial court ordered eviction under S. 14(1)(b), Tamil Nadu Rent Act, only for demolition and reconstruction and dismissed the other grounds, and that is the only ground with which we are concerned in this appeal. On 25th of February, 1981 the Appellate Court dismissed the petitioners appeal by saying that the landlords were rich people and capable of demolition and reconstruction in order to put the premises to a more profitable use by putting up their own showroom. On September 30, 1982 the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition of the petitioner and granted time till 31st of January, 1983 for the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. The petitioner thereafter filed a special leave petition against the judgment and order of the High Court in this Court. This Court initially ordered show cause notice and also granted ad interim ex parte stay of dispossession. On 29th January, 1983 the City Civil Court, Madras granted interim injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing the building till the disposal of the application in the suit filed by the petitioner against the ertswhile owner and the present landlords for specific performance of an agreement to sell the premises to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the injunction was confirmed and was still continuing and the said suit for specific performance was also pending in the City Civil Court, Madras.

3. On 17th of February, 1986 this court dismissed the special leave petition after notice but directed that the decree for eviction would not be executed till 17-11-86. It was observed by this Court that the petitioner would be at liberty to file a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, if so advised, challenging the validity of S. 14(1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act as mentioned on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the validity of S. 14(1) (b) and S. 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act on the ground that these were arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and unconstitutional. The petitioner contends in this writ petition that consequently the eviction order passed under S. 14(1)(b) and confirmed in appeal is also illegal. The aforesaid several of the writ petitions are on this issue.

4. The main ground of attack on this aspect seems to be that while other Rent Acts in case of eviction for demolition permit and direct that after reconstruction the tenant should be inducted as tenant or given the opportunity to have the same space in the reconstructed building, in the instant Act no such option is given and no such obligation imposed upon the landlord and as such the impugned provision is illegal as being discr