SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(P&H) 1769

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.S.Liberhan and V.S.Aggarwal JJ.
Harbilas Rai Bansal
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 1894 of 1988,
Decided On : DECEMBER 2, 1996

Rent control legislation, such as the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is a valid exercise of the State's power to protect tenants from rack-renting and large-scale evictions, and the classification of buildings into those constructed before and after a specified date for fixing fair rent is reasonable.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL - EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 4 - VALIDITY - NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION - CLASSIFICATION OF BUILDINGS INTO THOSE CONSTRUCTED BEFORE AND AFTER 1.1.1939 FOR FIXING FAIR RENT IS REASONABLE - RENT CONTROLLER CANNOT INCREASE RENT BEYOND THE FAIR RENT FIXED UNDER THE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, the owner of a shop in Mandi Giddarbaha, challenged the vires of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, arguing that it violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution by restricting his right to increase rent despite normal increases in the locality.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Section 4 of the Act is not ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and that the classification of buildings into those constructed before and after 1.1.1939 for fixing fair rent is reasonable.

Issues: 1. Whether Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the classification of buildings into those constructed before and after 1.1.1939 for fixing fair rent is reasonable?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on previous Supreme Court decisions which upheld the validity of similar rent control legislation and held that the purpose of the Act, to control rents and prevent rack-renting and large-scale evictions, is a legitimate exercise of the State's power. 2. The Court found that the classification of buildings into those constructed before and after 1.1.1939 is reasonable as it takes into account the different economic conditions prevailing at those times.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the Court held that the Rent Controller cannot increase rent beyond the fair rent fixed under the Act.

Judgment

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. Petitioner (Harbilas Rai Bansal) is owner and landlord of a shop situated in Mandi Giddarbaha, Ward No. 4, Old Subzi Mandi. Respondent No. 2 Avtar Krishan Arora is a tenant in the said premises. On 11.10.1949 Rent Controller, Muktsar is alleged to have fixed the fair rent of the said premises at Rs. 12/- per month keeping in view (he rates of rent prevalent in the locality for similar shops under similar circumstances for the year 1938. By virtue of the present petition the petitioner challenges the vires of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) to be violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India because as per the petitioner it restricts his rights to increase the rent despite there being a normal increase in the rent prevalent in the locality for similar shops.

2. Needless to say that in the reply filed respondent No. 2 contests the assertions in law alleged by the petitioner. There is no controversy about the facts that respondent No. 2 is a tenant and that fair rent was fixed at Rs. 12/- per month by the Rent Controller, Muktsar but it is denied that provisions of Section 4 of the Act are ultravires of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

3. To appreciate the said controversy a glance at the relevant provisions of the Act would be advantageous and in the fitness of things. Section 4 of the Act prescribes the scheme to be followed by the Rent Controller to fix the lair rent of the buildings. The said provision reads:-

"4. Determination of fair rent.- (1) The Controller shall on application by the tenant or landlord of a building or rented land fix the fair rent for such building or rented land after holding such inquiry as the Controller thinks fit.

(2) In determining the fair rent under this section, the Controller shall first fix & basic rent taking into consideration - (a) the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months prior to the Ist January, 1939; and

(b) the rental value of such building or rented land if entered in property tax assessment register of the municipal, town or notified area committee, cantonment board, as the case may be, relating to the period mentioned in clause (a):

(3) In fixing the fair rent of a residential building the Controller may allow, if the basic rent - (i) in the case of a building in existence before the Ist January, 1939 - (a) does not exceed Rs. 25 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 8-1/3 per cent on basic rent;

(b) exceeds Rs. 25 per mensem but does not exceed Rs. 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 12-1/2 per cent on such basic rent;

(c) exceeds Rs. 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 25 per cent on such basic rent;

(ii) in the case of a building constructed on or after the 1st January, 1939 - (a) does not exceed Rs. 25 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 25 per cent on such basic rent ;

(b) exceeds Rs. 25 but does not exceed Rs. 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 37-1/2 per cent on such basic rent;

(c) exceeds Rs. 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 50 per cent on such basic rent.

(4) In fixing the fair rent of a scheduled building the controller may allow, if the basic rent - (i) in the case of a building in existence before the Ist January, 1939 - (a) does not exceed Rs. 25 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 13-1/3 per cent on such basic rent;

(b) exceeds Rs. 25 but does not exceed Rs. 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 17-1/2 per cent on such basic rent;

(c) exceeds Rs. 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 30 per cent on such basic rent;

(ii) in the case of building constructed on or after the Ist January, 1939 - (a) does not exceed Rs. 25 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 30 per cent on such basic rent ;

(b) exceeds Rs. 25 but does not exceed Rs. 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 42-1/2 per cent on such basic rent;

(c) exceeds Rs. 50 per mensem, an increase





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top