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

2000 Supreme(Kar) 390

Karnataka High Court
Arun Balavant Chandagadkar - Appellant
Versus
Khutubuddin Shabhakhan Pathan,major - Respondent
Decided On : 06-27-00
W.P. : 22249 of 1990
W.P. : 9499 of 1988

Advocates:
G.B.SHASTRI, P.G.C.Chengappa, R.K.HATTI, S.K.V.Chalapathy, S.SHEKHAR SHETTY

The main legal point established in the judgment is the arbitrariness and unjust treatment of landlords under S. 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, leading to its declaration as unconstitutional under Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Rent Control Act - Constitutional Validity - S. 14, Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - [FIXATION OF FAIR RENT] - [S. 14] - [Summary of Act Sections: S. 14(1)-(10)] - The court discussed the provisions of S. 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, which outlines the process for fixing fair rent for buildings. The court highlighted the factors considered for fixing fair rent, such as prevailing rates of rent, rental value, and circumstances of the case. It also emphasized the limitations on increasing fair rent based on the rate of rent or rental value. The court found the provision to be arbitrary and unjust towards landlords, leading to its declaration as unconstitutional under Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of S. 14 (6) and S. 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, on the grounds of arbitrariness and lack of periodic review of fair rent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found S. 14 of the Act to be arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution due to its unjust treatment of landlords and lack of provisions for periodic correction of fair rent.

Issues: Constitutional validity of S. 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and the lack of periodic review of fair rent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of S. 14 were arbitrary and unjust towards landlords, leading to its declaration as unconstitutional under Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court declared S. 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, to be unconstitutional and struck it down, quashing the proceedings in the respective petitions.

S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions filed challenging the constitutional validity of S. 14 (6) and S. 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'act'), are consolidated for the purpose of disposal by a common order.

( 2 ) ). In W. P. No. 9499/88 the constitutional validity of S. 14 (6) of the Act is challenged on the ground that the provision is arbitrary, and has, in any event, after a long lapse of time, become unrelated to the realities of life and cannot be sustained. In W. P. No. 22249/90 the validity of S. 14 of the Act is challenged on the same ground that the determination of the fair rent in relation to a situation existing as on 1947, has by lapse of time, become arbitrary and is productive of negative income to the landlord.

( 3 ) SECTION 14 of the Act reads as follows :section 14 : Fixation of fair rent etc. :- (1) The landlord or tenant of any building, other than a building in respect of which the fair rent has been fixed either before or after the coming into operation of this Act, may make an application to the controller for fixing the fair rent of the building. (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Controller shall, after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit, fix the fair rent for such building. On fixing the fair rent for any building part of which has been lawfully sub-let, the Controller may also fix the fair rent of the part sub-let. (3) In fixing the fair rent under this section the Controller shall have due regard- (a) to the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months prior to the first day of April, 1947; (b) to the rental value as entered in the property tax assessment book of the local authority concerned relating to the period mentioned in clause (a); (c) to the circumstances of the case, including any amount paid by the tenant by way of premium or any other like sum in addition to rent after the first day of April, 1947. (4) In fixing the fair rent of a residential building the Controller may allow- (i) if the rate of rent or rental value referred to in sub-section (3) does not exceed fifty rupees per mensem, an increase not exceeding twenty-five per cent on such rate or rental value; (ii) if the rate of rent or rental value exceeds fifty rupees per mensem, an increase not exceeding fifty per cent of such rate or rental value. Explanation: For purposes of this section 'residental building' includes building let out for the purpose of a public hospital, an educational institution, a public library, reading room or orphanage. (5) In fixing the fair rent of a non-residential building, the Controller may allow- (i) if the rate of rent or rental value referred to in sub-section (3), does not exceed fifty rupees, an increase not exceeding fifty per cent of such rate or rental value; (ii) if the rate of rent or rental value exceeds fifty rupees per mensem, an increase not exceeding one hundred per cent of such rate of rental value. (6) In fixing the fair rent of a building which has been constructed after the first day of April, 1947, the Controller may take into consideration the rental value of the building as entered in the property tax assessment book of the local authority for the year in which the building was constructed :provided that where no such records are available, the Controller may fix the fair rent calculated on the basis of six per cent per annum of the aggregate amount of the reasonable cost of construction and the market price of the land comprised in the building on the date of the commencement of the construction. (7) In fixing the fair rent of any building under this section, the Controller shall fix the fair rent thereof in an unfurnished state and may also determine an additional charge to be payable on account of any fittings or furniture supplied by the landlord. (8) In fixing the fair rent of any building under this section,










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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top