Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, AMIYA KUMAR MUKHERJI
SAILENDRA NATH GHOSAL - Appellant
Versus
S. ENA DUTT - Respondent
A. F. A. D. 242 Of 1968
Decided On : JANUARY 28, 1971
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1969 - Section 4 read with Section 13 - Constitutional Validity - Classification of Landlords into Owner-Landlords and Transferee-Landlords - Retrospective Operation of Sub-Section (3a) - Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969, inserted a new Sub-section (3a) in Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, with retrospective effect. The provision prohibited transferee-landlords from bringing ejectment suits against tenants within three years of their purchase. The constitutional validity of this provision was challenged on the grounds that it violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the classification of landlords into owner-landlords and transferee-landlords was rational and based on an intelligible differentia. The object of the amended provision was to give more protection to tenants against eviction, and the classification had a rational nexus with this object. The Court also held that the restriction of three years on the right of transferee-landlords to recover possession of their property was a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, as it was in the interest of the general public. However, the Court held that the retrospective operation of Sub-section (3a) was ultra vires and invalid, as it would apply the restriction to all pending suits and appeals, including those filed since 1956 or even earlier.
Issues: 1. Whether the classification of landlords into owner-landlords and transferee-landlords was rational and based on an intelligible differentia. 2. Whether the restriction of three years on the right of transferee-landlords to recover possession of their property was a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 3. Whether the retrospective operation of Sub-section (3a) was ultra vires and invalid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification of landlords into owner-landlords and transferee-landlords was rational and based on an intelligible differentia because it was based on the different circumstances and interests of these two groups of landlords. Owner-landlords are typically more dependent on the rents from their tenanted properties than transferee-landlords, and they are less likely to sell their properties or to bring ejectment suits against their tenants. Transferee-landlords, on the other hand, are more likely to purchase properties with the intention of selling them or evicting the tenants in order to make a profit. This classification has a rational nexus with the object of the amended provision, which is to give more protection to tenants against eviction. 2. The restriction of three years on the right of transferee-landlords to recover possession of their property was a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution because it was not arbitrary or excessive, and it was in the interest of the general public. The restriction was necessary to protect tenants from eviction, and it was not unduly burdensome on transferee-landlords. 3. The retrospective operation of Sub-section (3a) was ultra vires and invalid because it would apply the restriction to all pending suits and appeals, including those filed since 1956 or even earlier. There was no evidence that the mischief sought to be remedied by the amended legislation was in existence since 1956, and the retrospective application of the restriction would be unfair to transferee-landlords who had already filed ejectment suits.
Final Decision: The Court held that Sub-section (3a) was intra vires except so far as it operates retrospectively under Section 13 of the Amending Act and, to that extent, it will be ultra vires and invalid.
( 1 ) THE above cases have been heard by us on the preliminary point, involving consideration of the vires of Section 4, read with Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969, whereby new Sub-section (3a) was inserted in Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, with retrospective effect so as to apply to pending proceedings.
( 2 ) THE constitutional validity of the above Sub-section (3a) has been challenged before us on the ground that it offends Articles 14 and 19 (1) ff) of the Constitution. It has been contended further that, even if the said provision be not ultra vires in itself, it will be ultra vires under the said Articles, when read with Section 13, as Section 13 of the Amending Act makes provisions of Sub-section (3a) (Section 4 of the Amending Act) retrospective and applicable to pending suits and appeals.
( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the landlords that the impugned sub-section is ultra vires under Article 14 of the Constitution as classification of landlords into owner-landlords and transferee-landlords is arbitrary and not a rational classification and has no nexus to the object, sought to be achieved by the amendment in question.
( 4 ) TO appreciate the contention, it would be convenient to advert to the amended provisions of Section 13 of the Act. In the original Section 13 of the Act. under Sub-section (1) (f), reasonable requirement for building and re-building was coupled with reasonable requirement of landlords' own occupation. By the present amendment the said sub-section has 'been split up into two parts:-- (f) subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3a) and Section 18-A, where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for purposes of building or rebuilding or for making thereto substantial additions or alterations, and such building or re-building carried out without the premises being vacated: (ff) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3a), where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. Sub-section (3a) of the Act reads as follows: (3a) "where a landlord has acquired his interest in the premises by transfer, no suit for the recovery of possession of the premises on any of the grounds mentioned in Clause (f) or Clause (ff) of Sub-section (1) shall be instituted by the landlord before the expiration of a period of three years from the date of his acquisition of such interest: Provided that a suit for the recovery of the possession of the premises may be instituted on the ground mentioned In Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) before the expiration of the said period of three years if the Controller, on the application of the landlord and after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard, permits, by order, the institution of the suit on the ground that the building or re-building, or the additions or alterations as the case may be, are necessary to make the premises safe for human habitation. "
( 5 ) THE legislature is empowered to make laws on a wide range of subjects. Obviously, it has the power to make a particular law to attain a particular object and to achieve such purpose it can classify the persons to be brought under the provisions of such law, provided the basis of such classification has a just and reasonable relation to the object, which the legislature has in view. When a law is challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is necessary, in the first place, to ascertain the policy, underlying the Statute, and the object intended to be achieved by it. Having ascertained the policy and object of the Act, the Court has to apply a dual test in examining its validity:-- (1) Whether the classification Js rational and based upon intelligible differentia, which distin
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
