Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
D.B.Padhye, J.
Appellants: Ramcharan Ramdin Ahir
Vs.
Respondent: Resident Deputy Collector with Rent Control Appellate Powers, Yeotmal and Ors.
Special Civil Appln. No. 795 of 1967 Decided On: 08.08.1970
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: J.N. Chandurkar, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: C.S. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for Adv.-General and K.G. Chendke, Adv.
RENT CONTROL - C.P. AND BERAR REGULATION OF LETTING OF ACCOMMODATION ACT, 1946 (NO. XI OF 1946) - C.P. AND BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - CLAUSE 13(3)(VI) - VALIDITY - REASONABLENESS OF RESTRICTIONS - ARTICLE 19(1)(F) OF THE CONSTITUTION - PROVISO TO CLAUSE 13(3)(VI) OF THE RENT CONTROL ORDER - STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the validity of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, on the ground that it violated his fundamental right to hold property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The respondent No. 3, the landlord, had filed an application before the Rent Controller for permission to give notice to the petitioner determining his lease, stating that she required the portion in the occupation of the petitioner for her bona fide residence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the proviso to Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, in so far as it denied to the landlord the right to get a house or a portion of the house in the occupation of the tenant if the landlord genuinely needed it, because his own house or a portion thereof in which he was living was either unsuitable or inadequate or insufficient for his needs, was ultra vires as it violated the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the constitution, the restrictions put thereon under Article 19(5) being unreasonable and is, therefore unconstitutional and invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949, violated the petitioner's fundamental right to hold property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the proviso to Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order was reasonable and in the interests of the general public?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the restrictions imposed on the landlord's right to occupy and enjoy his own house were unreasonable and excessive, and were not in the interests of the general public. 2. The Court found that the proviso to Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order was not a reasonable restriction on the landlord's right to hold property, as it denied the landlord the right to get a house or a portion of the house in the occupation of the tenant if the landlord genuinely needed it, even if his own house or a portion thereof was unsuitable or inadequate for his needs.
Final Decision: The Court struck down the proviso to Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order as unconstitutional and invalid, and dismissed the petition filed by the tenant.
"The State Government may by general or special order which shall extend to such areas as the State Government, may by notification direct, provide for regulating the letting and sub-letting of any accommodation or class of accommodation whether residential or non-residential, whether furnished or unfurnished and whether with or without board, and in particular-
(a) for controlling the rents for such accommodation either generally or when let to specified persons or classes of persons or in specified circumstances;
(b) for preventing the eviction of tenants or sub-tenants from such accommodation in specified circumstances;
(c) for requiring such accommodation to be let either generally, or to specified persons or classes of persons, or in specified circumstances; and
(d) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating any of the aforesaid matters."
The circumstances in which this petition arises are these:
The respondent No. 3 is the owner of house No. 1 in Ward No. 3 at Digras, taluq Darwha in Yeotmal District and the petitioner has been the tenant thereof for the last several years. The respondent No. 3 is a widow and has been staying with her son-in-law who is in Government service. A portion of the house in question is vacant and is in possession of the respondent No. 3. Another portion of the house is in occupation of another tenant Pande. The respondent No. 3 filed an application before the Rent Controller for permission to give notice to the petitioner determining his lease stating that she required the portion in the occupation of the petitioner for her bona fide residence. The petitioner challenged the need of the respondent No. 3 for her bona fide residence. It was urged that the respondent No. 3 owned two other houses in Digras and she could occupy those houses if she really needed any accommodation. It was also urged that she in fact was residing with her son-in-law who goes on transfer from place to place and does not need any accommodation in the portion of the house occupied by the petitioner. It was further alleged that a part of the house in which the petitioner is staying is in the occupation of the respondent No. 3 and she has already secured an order against the other tenant Pande.
2. The Rent Controller found that the respondent No. 3 needed additional accommodation and granted permission to her under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller before the Resident Deputy Collector. The Resident Deputy Collector found that the respondent No. 3 needed the portion in the occupation of the petitioner for her bona fide residence and dismissed the appeal. The orders of the Rent Control authorities are challenged by the petitioner by this petition.
3. The finding that a portion of the house, namely one room is in occupation of the respondent No. 3 would non-suit the respondent No. 3 in view of the recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Eknath v. Shankarrao. Special Civil Appln. No. 229 of 1966, D/- 5-9-1969 (reported in AIR 1971 Bom 1) (FB). On the interpretation of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, the Full Bench has taken a view that if the landlord is in occupation of another house of his own in the city or town, concerned, or is in occupation of a part of the house, in respect of the other part of which permission is sought by the landlord, the landlord cannot maintain an application for permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order even if the portion of the house in
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
