LexD.C. BHATIA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
D.C. BHATIA AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
OCTOBER 19, 1994
(M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ, SUHAS C. SEN AND
S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]
Constitution of Indi~Article 14-Constitutional validity of Section
A
B
3(c) of Delhi Rent Control Act-Held Not violative of Article 14 of Constitu-
C
ti on.
Delhi Rent Control Ac~ 1958, as amended by Act No. 52 of 1988-Sec-
tion 3(c)-lnapplicability of provisions of Act to any premises whose monthly
rent exceeded Rs. 3,5or>-Constitutional validity-{Jpheld.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended by Act No. 52 of 1988-Sec-
tion 3(c)-lnterpretation orApplicability of provision to tenancies created
prior to 1.12.198&-l'rovision to apply to premises which had already been let
out at monthly rent in excess of Rs. 3,500 when amendment made in 1988
came into force on 1.12.1988.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended by Act No. 52 of 1988-Sec-
tion 3(crTerm "rent''-Whether to be construed as "standard rent''-Held,
Nrr-ft was exact amount of monthly rent that was being paid on relevant date
i.e. 1.12.198fr-No precondition of fixation of standard rent before applicfllion
D
E
of provisions of Section 3(c).
F
The Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended by Act No 52 of 1988 came
into effect from 1.12.1988. Section 3(c) of the amended Act provided that
the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act will not apply to any premises
whose monthly rent exceeded Rs. 3500. The Appellant filed a writ petition
in the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of Section 3(c) of the Act. G
The writ petition was dismissed, and it was held that section 3(c) was a
valid piece of legislation and did not contravene aoy of the provisions of
the Constitution oflndia. It was also held that section 3(c) was prospective
and did not affect the cases that were pending on the date it came into
operation.
539
H
A
B
c
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
These appeals were filed against the judgment of the Delhi High
Court. The main contention of the appellant was that the provision of
Section 3(c) of the Act was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. It was
submitted that the classification of properties on the basis of rent was
arbitrary and discriminatory. In any event, the cut off point at Rs. 3,500
for the purpose of exclusion from the benefit of the Rent Control Legisla-
tion was fixed arbitrarily. It was also contended that provisions of Section
3(c) were prospective and would not apply to premises which were already
tenanted on the date on which the Amending Act came into force.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1.1. In order to strike a balance between the interests of the
landlords and the tenants and for giving a boost to house building activity,
the Iegislatnre in its wisdom has decided to restrict the protection of the
Delhi Rent Control Act only to those premises for which rent is payable
D upto Rs. 3500 per month and has decided not to extend this statutory
protection to the premises codstructed on or after the date of coming into
operation of the Amending Act for a period of ten years. This is a matter
of Legislative policy. [551-D]
E
F
1.2. It is for the legislature to decide what should be the cut-olTpoint
for the purpose of classification and Legislature of necessity must have a
lot of latitude in this regard. The safeguard provided by Article 14 of the
Constitntion can only be invoked, if the classification is made on the
grounds which were totally irrelevant to the object of the statute. But, if
there is some nexus between the objects sought to be achieved and the
classification, the Legislature is presnmed to have acted in proper exercise
of its constitutional power. The classification in practice may result in
some hardship. But, a statutory discrimination can not be set aside, if
there are facts on the basis of which the statntory discrimination can be
justified. It is for the legislature to decide whether or not any section of
the people shonld be protected in any way by law. For this pnrpose, the
G Legislatnre can identify the section of the people who needs protection and
decision how the classification will be done or what will be the cnt-olT point
for the purpose of making such classification. The classification may be
· done on income basis or rental basis or some other basis. The court can
only consider whether the classification has been done on an nnder-
H standable basis having regard to the object to tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.