Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali,Anant Singh, JJ.
Mohd. Maqbool (Master) - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 291/1966
Decided On : 10 September, 1970
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HOUSES AND SHOPS RENT CONTROL ACT, 1966 - Validity - Challenge - Grounds - Unreasonableness - Discrimination - Vires of the Act - Held - Act is valid.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the vires of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act 1966, on the grounds of unreasonableness and discrimination. The provisions of the Act were practically the same as the Ordinance with some minor additions and alterations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act was valid and the provisions challenged were not unreasonable or discriminatory. The Court observed that the object of the legislature behind the apparent discrimination was to have afforded incentives to the landlords to construct more houses for the tenants in the days of scarcity of accommodation, regard being had to the enormous rise in the price of building materials amongst other articles.
Issues: 1. Whether the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act 1966 is valid? 2. Whether the provisions of the Act are unreasonable or discriminatory?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Act was valid and the provisions challenged were not unreasonable or discriminatory. 2. The Court observed that the object of the legislature behind the apparent discrimination was to have afforded incentives to the landlords to construct more houses for the tenants in the days of scarcity of accommodation, regard being had to the enormous rise in the price of building materials amongst other articles.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs and a counsel fee of Rs. 100/-.
1. The petition dated 17th of August 1968, for a writ of Mandamus, was initially filed, challenging the vires of "The Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Ordinance 1966", but after the Ordinance was repealed by "The Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act 1966, being Act No. XXXIV of 1966, referred to hereafter as ˜the Act™, a supplementary writ petition was filed on 21-10-1969, challenging the validity of the Act as well, on the same grounds as in the original petition. The provisions of the Act are practically the same as the Ordinance with some minor additions and alterations, which are not relevant for the decision of this case. Now, therefore, the validity of the Act alone has to be considered in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner owns house and shops in Srinagar town, having been let out on rent "since long" though, the period when they were constructed is not mentioned.
3. In the petition, the vires of the Act has been challenged as a whole, but at the hearing, the provisions regarding the fixation of the fair rent as provided in Section 8 read with Schedule A of the Act, and the provisions as contained in Section I clause 3 sub-clauses (i) and (ii) alone were challenged on various grounds of differentiation and unreasonableness, violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, as I shall point out hereafter, while dealing with them. The validity of no other provision of the Act was challenged at the hearing.
4. Under section 1, clause 3, sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of the Act, any house or premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government, and any house or shop constructed by any one on or after the last day of 1965 have been exempted from the operation of the Act, which, otherwise, extends to the Municipal towns of Jammu and Srinagar and other urban areas to which the Rent Control Act of Samvat 2009 extended at its expiration.
5. Section 8(i) under various sub-clauses (i)(a) to (g) and (2) mentions the cases in which fair rent shall be fixed by the Controller on an application by any landlord or tenant and how such fair rent shall be determined in given circumstances.
6. Sub clause (2) is a residuary provision prescribing the methods of deciding fair rent of premises 12 months prior to first of Baisakh 1998.
7. Schedule A defines basic rent in relation to a house or a shop.
8. The fair rent has to be determined by the Controller under the different provisions of Section 8 read with the provisions as contained in Schedule A. Again, among the different sub-clauses of section 8, the provisions contained in (b)(c)(f) and (g) only have been challenged, apart from Schedule (A). The provisions of Section 8(a)(d)(e) were not challenged at the hearing.
9. On behalf of the State-respondent, the validity of the Ordinance and the Act is maintained as designed to afford protection to different classes of tenants in the matter of rent, and their eviction at the whims of unscrupulous land-lords.
10. It may be mentioned at this stage that previously also, there was "The House Rent Control Order of 2000" and the Shops Rent Control Order of 2002 which were both repealed by appropriate Rent Control Act 14 of 2009 (1952-A. D.) which was to remain in force till the end of March 1958, but its life was extended by subsequent Acts like Act No. 5 of 1964 extending its life till the end of 1966. Then came the impugned Ordinance, which has since been repealed by the impugned Act.
11. The provisions of the different Acts, Amendments and Ordinances with necessary changes have been in essence similar. In all of them houses or premises belonging to Government were exempted. In Act 14 of 1952 the houses constructed after 1954 were exempted as in the present Act, in which, houses constructed after 1965 have been exempted.
12. In regard to the provision of Section 1, exempting houses or premises belonging to the Government, and the houses and shops constructed after 1965
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
