Back
1986 Supreme(Bom) 242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Qazi M.M. Deshpande M.S., JJ.
Vidarbha (Rent Control) Bhadekaru
Sangh Akola another.... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra another.... Respondents.
Writ Petitions Nos. 1670 1695 of 1985, decided on 29-8-1986.
Advocates appeared :
G.B. Lohia R.S. Agrawal, for petitioners, B.P. Jaiswal, A.G.P., for respondent No. 1, R.S. Lambat, for respondent No. 2, A.S. Bobde and S.C. Mehadia, for intervenors, in Writ Petition No. 1670/1985.
M.I. Shareef, for petitioner, B.P. Jaiswal, A.G.P., for State, A.A. Desai D.G. Paunikar, for respondent No. 2, A.S. Bobde S.C. Mehadia, for intervenors, in Writ petition No. 1695/1985.
Headnote:C.P. BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949
Clause 1-Validity of.
It was stated that there was no material to show that continued operation of the three different enactments operates in discriminatory manner in different area to which they apply. Held that mere plea of different treatment was itself not sufficient to justify the plea of infringement of Article 14 of the constitution. In the absence of proper pleading and relevant material before the Court merely by reference to different provisions of the enactments operating in different parts of the State, it was not possible to hold that Rent Control Order, 1949, merely because of the existence of two other enactments was discriminatory and on that account challenge could not be sustained.
Petitioners sought that direction to the State might be issued to extend existing Bombay Act No. LVII of 1947 to the region of Vidarabha With retrospective effect and to eract a uniform law. It was state it was not the function of the Court to being pressure on the State for adopting a particular course. The point which the Court was resulted to consider was whether Act was discriminatory and violative of certain provisions of the constitution and required to be struck down.
DESHPANDE M.S., J.: - In Writ Petition No. 1670 of 1985, the rule is restricted to the prayer for a direction to respondent No. 1 to enact a uniform Rent Control legislation throughout the State of Maharashtra and striking down the Notification, dated October 24, 1968, whereby a house used for non-residential purposes constructed on a site lying vacant on the 1st day of January, 1967, or on a site made vacant after the date by demolition of any structure standing thereon, is exempted from the provisions of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949; and non-residential premises constructed before the 1st day of January, 1967, have been exempted from the provisions of Chapter III of the said Order.
2. In Writ Petition No. 1695 of 1985, the petitioner seeks a writ striking down the provisions of Chapter III of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949, framed under the C.P. Berar Regulations of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, as unconstitutional.
3. In Writ Petition No. 1670 of 1985, petitioner No. 1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act which has been formed with the object of safeguarding the interests of tenants of the Vidarbha Region and bringing about a unified Rent Control Act in place of the out-dated C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, “the Rent Control Order, 1949”), framed under the C.P. Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 (for short, “the Act of 1946”). Petitioner No. 2, who occupies a shop premises on lease at Akola, is a member of the aforesaid society. Respondent No. 2 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 483 of 1984 in the Court of the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Akola, without obtaining the permission of the House Rent Controller, on the strength of the Notification, dated October 24, 1968, (NDS) M.G.G., Sr.No. 19, Dept. No. BRA-2067-27097-E, issued by the Urban Development, Public Health and Housing Department, in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 30 of the Rent Control Order, 1949, which is to the following effect:-
“Non-residential houses. - In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 30, the Government of Maharashtra hereby exempts -
(a) from all provisions of the said Order, any house used for non-residential purposes, if it is constructed on a site lying vacant on the 1st day of January, 1967, or on a site made vacant after that date by demolition of any structure standing thereon;
(b) from the provisions of Chapter III of the said Order, any house used for non-residential purposes, if it is constructed before the 1st day of January, 1967.”
The petitioner had applied to the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Akola, for making a reference to this Court under section 113, read with Order 46, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, but that application having been rejected, the petitioners approached this Court questioning the Notification as being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. The challenge is based on the ratio of the decision in (Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh)1, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 121 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in (Prabhakar Tanbaji Rokde v. State of Maharashtra)2, 1985 Mh.L.J. 548, holding that Notification No. 659-66 II dated 6th February, 1952 issued by the State Government under Clause 30 of the Rent Control Order, 1949, exempting from the operation of all the provisions of the said order any house used for residential purposes, if the house is constructed on a site lying vacant on 1st January, 1951 or on a site made vacant on or after that day by demolition of any structure standing on such site, is null and void being unconstitutional as violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It is urged that the exemption, which was thought necessary for giving a spurt to the construction activity initially by granting the exemption, has become discriminatory by lapse of time. The challenge is also to the
