A classification between residential and commercial buildings in a rent control law is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India if there is no nexus between the classification and the object of the law, and if the distinction between residential and commercial premises is not reasonable and does not have a rational relation to the object of the law.

JUDGMENT

M.S.SONAK,J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that a common judgment and order can dispose of these three petitions since they raise substantially common issues of Law.

3. In all these petitions, the principal challenge is to the provision in Sec. 23 of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (Rent Control Act) to the extent the said provision prohibits landlords from securing eviction of their tenants from nonresidential buildings on the ground of bonafide need for personal occupation.

4. The Petitioner, in Writ Petition No.377 of 2019, has urged the striking down of the entire Rent Control Act or in the alternate Ss. 12 to 16, 18, 21, 22, 33 and Sec. 2(p) of the Rent Control Act, in addition to the challenge to Sec. 23 of the Rent Control Act. However, in our Judgment, the challenges to the entire Rent Control Act or the provisions other than Sec. 23 of the Rent Control Act are presently academic. Therefore, we propose only to consider the issue of the constitutional validity of Sec. 23 of the Rent Control Act and not the other challenges left open for examination in appropriate cases.

5. In Writ Petition No. 726 of 2017, the Petitioner's application for eviction of Respondent No.2 from the commercial premises let out to him on the grounds of the bonafide requirement was dismissed by the trial Court and such dismissal was upheld by the First Appellate Court. The dismissal was because Sec. 23 of the Rent Control Act does not permit a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant from the commercial premises on the ground of bonafide requirement. Hence, the petition to question the constitutional validity of Sec. 23 of the Goa Rent Control Act.

6. In Writ Petition No.811 of 2019, the trial Court did order the eviction of Respondent No.1 - the tenant, from the commercial premises on the ground of Petitioner's bonafide requirement. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the trial Court by holding that Sec. 23 does not apply to commercial premises. Hence, Writ Petition No.811 of 2019 to challenge the validity of Sec. 23 of the Rent Control Act.

7. In Writ Petition No.377 of 2019, the Petitioner has instituted the proceedings for eviction of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (Tenants) from the commercial premises on the ground of bonafide requirement. The proceedings are pending, but the Petitioner apprehends that such proceedings would fail given the provisions of Sec. 23 of the Rent Control Act and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Evaristo Esteneslaoc Rodrigues and Ors. V/s. Vaman Anant Parab Mahambrey and Ors. (1986 (3) Bom.CR 560). Hence, the Writ Petition No.377 of 2019 questioning inter alia the constitutional validity of Sec. 23 of the Rent Control Act.

8. At the outset, Mr J. E. Coelho Pereira and Mr Rui Alberto Gomes Pereira submitted that the issue of the constitutionality of identical provisions stands answered in the Petitioners' favour by several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including but not restricted to Gian Devi Anand V/s. Jeevan Kumar and Ors. (1985 2 SCC 683), Harbilas Rai Bansal V/s. State of Punjab and Anr. (1996) 1 SCC 1), Rakesh Vij V/s. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 504), Satyawati Sharma (dead) by LR's V/s. Union of India and Anr. (2008) 5 SCC 287), Ashok Kumar V/s. Ved Prakash and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 264), Vinod Kumar V/s. Ashok Kumar Gandhi (2019) 17 SCC 237), Mohinder Prasad Jain V/s. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2 SCC 724) and Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 1).

9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that legal relations between the landlords and tenants before the Rent Control Act entered force in 1969 were governed by Portuguese Decree-Law No. 43425 dtd. 7/3/1961. They pointed out that under this Law, there was no distinction between residential and commercial premises in the context of a landlord's right to seek eviction of his te