Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.†-W. P. No. 1124 of 1963 comes before us on a Reference made by one of us (K. Srinivasan, J.). It was a proceeding in Prohibition, by Messrs. Raval & Company (petitioners), seeking to restrain the respondents, including the Chief Rent Controller, Madras (fourth respondent), from prosecuting or proceeding with a petition for the fixation of fair rent, under the Madras Rent Control Acts. Connected with this ape two other proceedings, namely, C.R.P. No 1816 of 1963 and Application No. 2443 of 1964 in C. S. No. 163 of 1962, in which certain closely inter-linked questions are involved. Our learned brother (Srinivasan, J.) felt the difficulty that the catena of decisions of this Court, as far as the Madras Rent Control Acts are concerned, had been only in the consistent directions that these Acts did purport to interfere with contractual tenancies, both as regards the fixation of fair rents and as regards the respective rights of landlords and tenants, in the matter of eviction and the grounds for eviction ; while certain recent decisions of the Supreme Court, no doubt not upon the Madras Acts but upon similar enactments of other States, appear to justify the interpretation that the contractual tenancies should first be terminated by a notice under section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, after which alone the procedure under the special Acts would become applicable, their object being to give this additional protection to what are termed ‘statutory tenancies’.

This explains the Reference, and, as the matter has been argued before us, the following questions emerge for our consideration:-

1. Do the Madras Act, including the latest Amending Act XI of 1964, enact as self-contained Code governing all relationships between landlords and tenants, during their subsistence, including contractual as well as statutory tenancies, within their ambit ?

2. In particular, do they enable landlords and tenants to obtain the determination of fair rents for buildings,‘even during contractual tenancies, and notwithstanding the contract of rent, to which the tenancies relate ?

Similarly, do they enable the landlords and tenants to work out their respective rights in the matter of the liability of the tenants for eviction on the grounds specified in the Acts, even during a contractual tenancy, and without that tenancy being first determined by the landlord in accordance with section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act ?

4. Can this interpretation be sustained, as a matter of legislative competence and legislative intendment, notwithstanding the absence of a non-obstante clause in the Acts?

Apart from these questions, which are on the interpretation of the particular statute, two questions of their constitutional validity have also been raised before us. The first is that Amending Act XI of 1964, under which a ceiling in respect of nonresidential tenements, namely, Rs. 400 specified in section 30 of Madras Act XVIII of 1960, was done away with, and a further section in the Amending Act (section 3) was introduced for the abatement of certain pending proceedings, is ultra vires, as offending Article 14 of the Constitution; the argument is that, both as a matter of legislative history and in the substantial sense, the amending enactment embodies a hostile discrimination against the landlords of non-residential premises, without a reasonable basis or objective. On this aspect, even the bona fides of the amending enactment has been assailed, and it is contended that the enactment was hastily rushed through the Legislature, without the salutary procedure of a reference to a Select Committee, and in a matter of one or two days, because the concerned Minister had a personal motive to obtain the benefit of the legislation. An interpretation of section 3 of Madras Act II of 1964 also arises, particularly in connection with the facts in Application No. 2443 of 1964 in C. S. No. 163 of 1962. The other constitutional point raised during th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document