LexMALPE V!SHWANATH ACHARYA AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MALPE V!SHWANATH ACHARYA AND ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. DECEMBER 19, 1997 [J.S. VERMA, CJ., B.N. KIRPAL AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] Rellt Colltrol-Bombay Rellts, Hotel and Lodgillg House Rates Control Act, 1947-Sectiolls S(JO)(B), 11(1), 12(3)-Stalldard Rellt-Fixatioll of-Restrictioll oil the right of the /a11d/ords to increase rent by freezi11g rent as Oil 1st September 1940 or at the time of the first letti11g-Validity of-Held to be unreasonable; as rapid i11crease i11 the expe11ses for repair and other outgoi11gs a11d the decreasi11g 11et amount of rent remainillg with the la11dlord, with the passage of time, is leading to arbitrary results-However it is llOt 11ecessary to stlike dow11 the said provisiolls as the existi11g Act elapses oil 31st March 1998. Social legislation-Rent Control Acts-Periodic revisio11 of-Necessity f 01-Held, Pe1iodic revision ill social legislatio11 like Rent Control Act is 11ecessary to suike a balallce betweell 1ival illterests-lts absellce results it increasillg injustice to olle sectio11 of the society leadi11g to increase in lawlessness and undennining of the auth01ity of law-Continuance of such law becomes unreasonable, disoimi11ato1y and ultra-vires A1ticle 14-Con- stitutioll of India, 195(}-Aiticle 14. Legislatioll-Lapse of time--Reasonable11ess of -Held, with the pas- sage of time a legislation which was justified when enacted may become arbitra1y alld Ullreasollable with the challge in circumstallces. Legal Maxims : 'Lex injusta llOI! est lex-Applicability of. A B c D E F Two writ petitions mi behalf of several landlords were filed in the G High Court of Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 5(10)(B), Section 11(1) and Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 inter alia, on the ground that the said provisions pertaining to standard rent were ultra vires Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently void. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the landlords filed the H 717 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A present appeals which were heard alongwith the connected writ petitions bearing numbers 17/96 and 824/96. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the restriction on the right of the landlords to increase rents, which had been frozen as on 1st · September 1940 or at the time of the first letting, was no longer a reasonable B restriction and the said provisions had with the passage of time, become arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and consequently ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution; and in view of the constant escalation in prices due to inflation and corresponding fall in the value of Rupee, ceiling on rentals, such as the one imposed by Sect.ion 5(10)(a) and (b) read with Sections 7 C and 11 of the Bombay Rent Act, was totally arbitrary, unrealistic and unreasonable. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the State was aware about the problem of the landlords and was proceeding in the right direction to obviate their difficulties by introducing certain amendments D in the Bombay Rent Act in 1987. By virtue nf these amendments, a landlord was allowed to increase the rent for an improvement or structural altera- tion of the premises. Further the provisions relating to standard rent were not to apply for a period of five years to any premises, the construction or reconstruction of which was completed on or after the appointed date, namely 1-10-87. The landlord could also increase the rent in case he was E required to pay fresh rates, charges etc. to the Government. Disposing of the matters, this Court HELD : 1. The High Court erred in upholding the validity of the F impugned provisions relating to standard rent. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, there is on doubt that the existing provisions of the Bombay Rent Act relating to the determination and fixation of the standard rent can no longer be considered to be reasonable. The said provisions would have been struck down as having now become unreasonable and arbitrary but it is not necessary to strike down the same G in view of the fact that the present extended period of the Bombay Rent Act comes to an end on 31st March 1998. It is hoped that a new Rent Control Act will be enacted with effect from 1st April, 1998 keeping in view the observations made in this judgment in s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.