HARBILAS RAI BANSAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 178 · Decided: 05-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
HARBILAS RA! BANSAL 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 5, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article J~Scope of-Classification-There 
must be nexus between basis of classification and object of Act-East Punjab 
Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 195(r-Validity of 
East Punjab Urban Rent Rest1iction (Amendment) Act, 195(r-Con-
stitutional validity of-Eviction from non-residential building on ground of 
bonafide requirement-Barred by Amendment Act-Classification created by 
Amendment Act between residential and non-residential building-No 
reasonable nexus with object sough to be achieved by the Act-Provisions of 
D Amendment liable to be struck down. 
E 
F 
G 
The non.residential premises in dispute was given on rent by the 
appellants' father to the predecessor-in-interest of respondent 2. After the 
death of appellants' father in 1953 the appellant became owner of the shop. 
According to the appellant he was a Registered Medical Practitioner under 
the homoeopath system of medicines and intended to start practice and 
for that purpose he bonafide required that shop for his personal use and 
occupation. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, prior to 
1956, permitted a landlord to evict bis tenant from a non-residential 
building on the ground of bonafide requirement for his own use. However, 
that right of the landlord was taken away by the East Punjab Urban Rent 
Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956. A writ petition challenging the 
Amendment was dismissed by the High Court in limine. This appeal, by 
way of special leave, was filed against the order of the High Court, 
challenging the constitutional validity of the Amendment. 
The appellant contended that the provisions of the Amendment are 
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the classification of 
the buildings into residential and non-residential created by the amend-
ment has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the 
Act; that the taking away of the landlords right to seek eviction of bis 
H tenant, from a non-residential premises, on the ground of his bonafide 
178 
H.R. BANSAL v. STATE 
179 
requirement is wholly arbitrary and as such is hit by Art. 14 of the A 
Constitution. 
The respondent contended that a tenant occupying non- residential 
premises and the one occupying residential premises belong to two dif' 
ferent classes under the Act and as such no fault can be found with the 
amendment. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. To be permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution a 
classification must satisfy two conditions namely (i) that the classification 
'Dust be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons 
or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and 
(ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to 
be achieved by the Statute in question. The classification may be founded 
B 
c 
on different basis, but what is necessary is that there must be a nexus 
between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under con- D 
sideration. [183-G-H] 
Budha11 Choudhary v. State of Bihar, [1956] l SCR 1045; Ram Krishna 
Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, [1959] SCR 279; U.P. Electric Power a11d 
Supply Company Limited v. State of U.P., [1969] 1 SCC 817 and Mohd. 
E 
Ha11if Quareshi v. State of Bihar, [1959] SCR 629, relied on. 
2.1 The primary purpose for legislating the East Punjab Urban Rent 
Restriction Act, 1949 was to protect the tenants against the mala fide 
attempts by their landlords to procure their eviction. Bona fide require-
ment of a landlord was, therefore, provided in the Act--11s originally F · 
enacted--11 ground to evict the tenant from the premises whether residen-
tial or non-residential. [184-E-F] 
2.2 The provisions of the Act, prior to be the amendment, were 
uniformly applicable fo the residential and non-residential buildings. The G 
amendment, in the year 1956, created the impugned classification. The 
objects and reasons of the Act indicate that it was enacted with a view to 
restrict the increase of r~nts and to safeguard against the mala fide 
eviction of tenants. The Act, therefore, initially provided-conforming to 
its objects and reasons--bo11aftde requirement of the premises by the 
landlord, whether residential or non residential, as a ground of eviction of H 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A the tenant. The classif

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