LexMOTOR GENERAL TRADERS & ANR. ETC ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
'C
•
594
-MOTOR GENERAL TRADERS & ANR. ETC; fJTC.
. .
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC. ETC.
October 26, 1983
(A.P. S~N AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH JJ.)
Constitution. of India 1950 Article 14-Classification when constilutior.al-
Andhra Pradesh Bui/dings (Lease, Rent and EJ'iction) Control Act, 1960 Section
32 (b)-Whether •iolative of Articfe 14.
A.ndhra Pradesh Buildings (lease, !~ent and Evic1ion) Control Act, 1960,
Section 32 (b)-Act no/ applicable tiJ any building constructed on or after August
J6, 1957-Provision whether violative of Article ~4 of the Constitutio11,
lnte,.pretation of Statuteso
D
Constit11tionality of a statute--!f'hether n1ere ldpse of tin1e lend~ constitu-
E
F
'
G
H
tionality to ·a pro11ision.
. .
Doctrine of seyerability-Section in a statute held viofath•e of Ariic/e-
Whether entire statute can be struck down.
On October 1, J95l the State of Andhra came into existence. The
·Madras Buildings (Lease, Rent and EvictiOn) Contfol Act, 1949 continued to
be in operation in the State. The area known as Telengana was mCrged with
Andhra and the new State of Andhra Pradesh came into existence on Novem-
ber 1, 1956. The Hyderabad House (Rent, Eviction and_Lease) Control Act,
1954 which was in force in the Telengana area continued to be in force in that
area even after the new St'ate of Andhra Pradesh c~me info existence:
By a notification dated May 9, 1956 isslled by the· Governnient of
Andhra Pradesh, ail buildings in ihe Andhra area the construction of which
was completed on or after October J, 1953 were eX:empted from· the Madras
Act for a perio4 of three )'ears from the date of such completion. On Auiust
26, 1957 the State Government issued another notification under the Hydeiabad
Act exempting all buildings in the Telengana Area for a period of five Years.
Both the Madras Act and the Hyderabad Act were repealed ·and replaced by
the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control ACt, 1960,
which was passed in .1960. · si:ctioD 32 of the Act provided that the Act would
not apply (a) to any building· Owned.by the Government, (b) to any building
constructed on and after 26th August, 1957.
The constitutionality of sec. 32 (bJ was questioned in a writ petition filed
in 1964, in the High Court on the ground that it violatt'd Art: 14 of the Consti-
tution. That petition was dismissed by the High Court on Jan~ary s, 1965
f .,.
. 'A
_J
J
M,0, TRADERS V. ANDHRA PRADESH
595
(Chintapalll Achalah v. P. <Jopa/akrishna Reddy, A.I.R. 1966 A.P. 51) upholding
the validity of sec. 32 (b). The High Court held that the hardship caused .to .
the tenant by the exemption given in the case of buildings constructed after
•
August 26, 1957 under sec. 32 (b) of the Act was 'short lived' and the conces-
1ion should be tolerated for a short while.
In their writ petitions to this Court the petitioners assailed th~ constitu-
·tional validity of sec. 32 (b) of the Act contending that the buildings to which
the Act was applicable were aged more than 26 years and those to which the
Act was not applicable were aged about 26 years or less and during the 26
yoars from Au&ust 26, 1957 thousands of buildings had been constructed
enjoying immunity of ihc Act, thai on ~ccount of the exemption, there were
two sets of buildings in every area those· to which the Act v.as applicable and
those which were exempted under sec. 32 (b) and there had ·also come into
·existence two classes of landlords-one class governed by the Act and the
other not governed by the Act and two classes of tenants-one class having
the Protection of the remedial provisions of the Act and another class which
did not have.such protection, and that whatever might have been the position.
in the first few years after the Act was passed there was no justification for
continuing thi6 exemption for all tim~ to come.
•
A
B
c
The writ petitions Were resisted by the State Government and the land-
D•
lorlfs, on the ground that §I.pee sec. 32 (b) was valid at the commencement
of the Act. as held by the High Court in the year 1965 it could not be .struck
down 3.t any time after it had came into force. If clciuse (b) of sec. 32 was
invalid then the entire Act would have to be struCk down, so that all the
tenancies might be regulated by contracts entered into by the parties in accor-
dance with their free will. They als~urged thats. 32 {b) was not violative of
E
Article 14. The State Government Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.