IMPORTANT POINTS
Religious Premises Act being a special Act cannot be invalidated on ground of existence of two general laws on same subject.
Treating properties of religious institutions as a separate category for purpose of rent control legislations is not ultra vires Article 14, Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The afore-captioned Civil Appeal impugns the judgment dated 6th July 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which dismissed five writ petitions challenging the vires of the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 (‘Religious Premises Act’, for short).

2. The appellants before us are tenants in occupation of shops located in Gurudwara Singh Sabha, a gurudwara at Kukar Majra, G.T. Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab. The appellants claim that they were inducted as tenants during the period 1965-69 by Gurudwara Singh Sabha. However, no formal lease or agreements were executed and albeit, over a period of time, rents were progressively increased. The appellants further claim that they are small businessmen carrying on trade primarily connected with steel industry, while one of the appellants runs a dhaba. By the letter dated 2nd March, 1978, the appellants were informed that the affairs of the gurudwara had come under the control of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (‘SGPC’ for short) and they should, therefore, pay the rent to SGPC. It is alleged that the appellants have been paying rent to SGPC or the manager of the gurudwara but receipts have not been regularly issued.

3. In the year 1997, SGPC had filed an eviction petition against one of the appellants, Harbhajan Singh, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (‘East Punjab Rent Act’, for short) on two grounds, viz., (i) failure to pay rent, and (ii) SGPC needed the property for construction of shops. Harbhajan Singh had, thereafter, deposited arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. The eviction proceedings, however, had remained pending and were not decided.

4. On 29th January 1998, the Religious Premises Act was enforced, and thereby introduced a summary procedure for evicting unauthorised occupants from the premises/property belonging to the religious institutions. Thereafter, SGPC had filed ejectment petitions under the Religious Premises Act before the Collector for eviction of the appellants stating that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation. The appellants, on receipt of notices from the Collector under Section 4 of the Religious Premises Act, had filed the writ petitions challenging the vires of the enactment before the High Court, which by the impugned judgment have been dismissed. The primary challenge before the High Court was to the explanation to clause (a) to Section 3 of the Religious Premises Act on the ground that the provision creates an unintelligible classification to the disadvantage of the tenants who are otherwise entitled to equal protection as other tenants under the East Punjab Rent Act.

5. The pleas raised by the appellants were rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court after referring to the object and purpose behind the impugned enactment, that is, to preserve the property of religious institutions, by observing that public at large has an inherent interest in the “religious institutions” which were prone to maladministration and mismanagement. Referring to the definition of “unauthorised occupants”, it was observed that a person who is in occupation of the premises belonging to a “religious institution” on a valid allotment, lease or grant is not to be treated as an “unauthorised occupant” for the period of allotment, lease or grant. The explanation states that mere payment of rent by the tenant who is in unauthorised occupation shall not raise any presumption that such person had entered into possession as an allottee, lessee or under a grant. Referring to the detailed and comprehensive procedure for eviction under Sections 4 and 5 of the Religious Premises Act, it was held that the Collector has to be satisfied that the opposite party was in “unauthorised occupation” and only thereupon an eviction order can be passed after following the due procedure. A person aggrieved against the order passed by th