MOHINDER KUMAR ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 859 · Decided: 18-09-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

859 
MOHINOER KUMAR ETC, ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 18, 1985 
[P.N. BHAGWATI, CJ., R.S. PATHAK AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.] 
B 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973, 
section 1(3) - Validity of. 
The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 
by Section 1(3) as amended by the Amending Act 1978 (Act 16 of 
c 
1978) provides: "Nothing in this Act shall apply to any building 
the construction of which is completed on or after the commence-
ment of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its 
completion". 
· 
'i'he petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of 
D 
Section 1(3) of the Act on the grounds: (i) that the provision 
seeks to make an invidious distinction between buildings cons-
tructed before the commencement of this Act and buildings 
the 
construction of which was completed on or after the commencement 
of this Act and on the basis of this invidious distinction this 
provision discriminates between the landlords and tenants of 
buildings constructed before the Act and after the Act inasmuch 
E 
as a landlord enjoys in case of buildings construction of which 
is completed on or after the commencement of the Act an exemption 
from the operation of the Act and the tenant in respect of such 
building is denied the protection and the benefits of the Act for 
a period of 10 years from the date of completion of the construc-
tion of the building, whereas the landlord of any building cons-
F 
tructed before the commencement of the Act does not enjoy any 
such exemption and the tenant of such building enjoys the protec-
tion and all the benefits of the Act. Thus, the discrimination 
between one class of landlords and their tenants and the other 
class of landlords and their tenants on the basis of the time of 
completion of the buildings is clearly arbitrary and is violative 
G 
of Art. 14 of the Constitution; and (ii) that the retrospective 
operation of the Act has the effect of taking away the vested 
right of the tenant and 1D11St, therefore, be held to be illegal 
and bad. 
Dismissing the writ petitions, 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
860 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
lllW>: l(i) Section 1(3) of the Act as amended by the 
Alllending Act of 1978 (Act 16 of 1978) is constitutionslly valid. 
kny iw:enti ve offered for the purpose of construction of new 
buildingo with the object of easing the situation of scarcity of 
accoaimodstion for ameliorating the conditions of the tenants, 
cannot be said to be unreasonable, provided the nature end 
character . of the iucentive end the lleSSure of exemption allowed 
are not otherwise unreasonable end arbitrary. The exemption to be 
allowed lllUBt be for a reasonsble and a definite period. kn exemp-
tion for an indefinite period or a period which in the facts and 
circumataucea of any particular case may be considered to be 
unduly long, may be held to be arbitrary. The exemption 111USt 
necessarily be effective from a particlllar date and lllU8t be with 
the object of promoting new constructions. In the instant case, 
the provision for exemption from the operation of the llent 
Control Legislation by way of incentive to persons with means to 
construct new houses has been made in Section 1(3) of the Act by 
the Legislature in the legitimate hope that construction . of new 
buildings will ultimately result in mitigation of the hardship of 
the tenants. Such iw:entive has a clear lleJW8 with the object to 
be achieved and cannot be considered to be unreasonable or arbi -
trary. With the coonencewmt of the Act, the proviaiona of the 
Rent Act with all the restrictions and rigours beCOllle effective. 
Buildings which have been constructed before the' caameucement of 
the Act were already there and the question of any kind of 
impetus or incentive to such buildings does not arise. The Legis-
lature, therefore, very appropriately allowed the benefit of the 
exsnption to the buildings, the construction of which c'"'""'ced 
or was completed on or after the cC11111encemm>t of the Act. lbis 
exemption in respect of buildings coming up or to come up on or 
after the date of COllllll!QCement of the Act is likely to serve the 
purpose of eucouraging new buildings to be constructed. There is 
therefore, nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in fixing the date 
of """""1!cement of the Act frcxa which the exemption is to be 
operative. [866 IHI] 
(11) The exemption for a period of 10 years frcxa the opera-
tion

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