HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 04-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA, SANJIV KHANNA, KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3674 of 2009)
DECEMBER 04, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, SANJIV KHANNA AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1997 – Vires of 1997 Act – Challenge to, by the
tenant on the ground that they are entitled to protection against
eviction under East Punjab Rent Act which cannot be taken away
under the Religious Premises Act – Held: Vires of the Religious
Premises Act, a special enactment concerning landlord and tenant
relationships, cannot be challenged on the ground that there are
already two other enactments governing general landlord and
tenant relationships-Transfer of Property Act and East Punjab Rent
Act – Constitution confers the power and authority on the State to
enact two separate enactments on a similar subject if they seek to
achieve different objectives and protect and preserve different sets
of rights and make necessary classification to serve such varied
ends – Religious Premises Act, unlike the East Punjab Rent Act and
the Public Premises Act, concerns itself with the administration of
premises belonging to religious institutions and seeks to regulate
their rights as landlords vis-a-vis the tenants in occupation –
Furthermore, the State legislature while enacting the Religious
Premises Act was aware that it has enacted East Punjab Rent Act,
an existing statute governing landlord and tenant relationship –
However, the State legislature in its wisdom deemed it appropriate
to enact a law in respect of land and buildings belonging to
“religious institutions” – East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions
Act, 1949.
Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1997 – Eviction proceedings against the tenants by
the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee under the East Punjab Rent
Act – Subsequently, enactment of Religious Premises Act and
ejectment proceedings against the tenant under the Religious
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 828
828
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
Premises Act –  Plea of tenant that Religious Premises Act creates
an artificial classification as tenants of land and buildings
belonging to or owned by religious institutions are no longer
entitled to protection under the East Punjab Rent Act though such
protection continues to be available to other tenants – Held:
Charitable or religious institutions or endownments fall into a
separate category and form a class by themselves –  Tenants
coming under them also form a separate class and can be treated
differently from others – Classification of properties of religious
institutions as a separate and distinctive class of properties would
not fall foul or be violative of Art. 14 – Granting exemption to
buildings belonging to charities, religious or secular institutions,
from rent control legislation, would not offend the equal protection
clause of Art. 14 as it is a reasonable classification based on
intelligible differentia and also satisfies the test of nexus as such
institutions not only serve public purpose but disbursement of their
income is governed by the objects for which they are created –
Thus, the withdrawal of protection to the tenants of such buildings
was justified –  Constitution of India – Art. 14 – East Punjab Urban
Rent Restrictions Act, 1949.
Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1997 – s. 3 –  “Unauthorised occupation of
religious premises” – Meaning of – Held: A person is deemed to
be in unauthorised occupation of any religious premises if he has,
before or after commencement of the Religious Premises Act,
entered into possession of a land or building belonging to a
religious institution otherwise than under or pursuant to any
allotment, lease or grant – A person who enters into possession
of the land or building belonging to or owned by a religious
institution and has valid and subsisting allotment, lease or grant
is clearly not an unauthorised occupant –  Valid grants, leases and
allotments are not construed and treated as unauthorised
occupation –  It is only when the terms of the grant, lease or
allotment are not adhered to or have been determined or the period
of allotment, lease or grant as fixed has come to an end, that the
person in occupation is treated to be in unauthorised occupation
– This is a pre-condition which confers the right on the religious
institution to seek eviction of a person in unauthorised occupation
of the religious pre

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.