MYLAPORE CLUB versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 996 · Decided: 28-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MYLAPORE CLUB 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 28, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.J 
Madras City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921-Section I-Amendment by 
C Madras City Tenant's Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 exempting tenancies 
of land owned by religious institutions/charit!es form operation of the I 92 I 
Act-Section 3 of Amending Act abating pending proceeding instituted by 
tenant in respect of such lands and declaring that all rights privileges conferred 
on them by Act of I 92 I would cease, except for suit/proceeding in which 
decree/order had been satisfied in full before Amending Act came into force-
D Constitutional validity of-Held: Amending Act was constitutionally valid and 
exemption of tenancies granted by it had rational nexus to objects of Act of 
1921-Power to exempt was available to legislature based on/act situation-
Tenants did not have vested right to protection of Act of 192 I and in absence 
of such a right, the Amending Act was applicable to them-There was no 
legislative intervention with a judicial decision as concluded transactions based 
E on adjudications had been saved-Jn pending proceedings affected by the 
Amending Act, legislature could provide that they be discontinued-General 
Clauses Act, 1897-Section 6. 
legislature power-Right to claim benefit of statute-It is not a vested 
F right-It can be withdrawn by legislature which made the statute. 
Madras City Tenant's Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994, enacted 
by legislature of respondent state, by its Section 2 amended Section I of 
Madras City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921 thereby exempting form the 
operation of the latter Act tenancies of land owned by religious institutions/ 
G charities. Its Section 3 declared that any proceeding instituted by a tenant 
in respect of any land owned by such a religious institution or religious 
charity, which was being exempted from the operation of the Act pending 
before any Court or the other Authority, would stand abated and all rights 
and privileges conferred by the extension of the Act of 1921 would cease 
H 
996 
, . 
MYLAPORE CLUB v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
997 
and would become unenforceable. However, a proviso was added to the A 
effect that nothing contained in Section 3 shall be deemed to render invalid, 
any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed his been executed 
or satisfied in full before the date of the coming into force of the Act. 
Appellants challenged the constitutional validity of this amendment. High 
Court rejected the challenge. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that (i) object of the Act of 1921 to ensure 
expectation of a tenant who has put up a superstructure that he would 
not be evicted was not belied would be defeated by exempting leases of 
lands belonging to religious institutions/charities (ii) provision for abating 
B 
all proceedings initiated at instance of the tenant under 1921 Act was C 
interference with judicial decision making process and beyond power of 
the legislature. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The legislature itself has exempted the tenancies created 
by religious or charitable institutions. The grant of the exemption to such D 
tenancies has to be held to be having rational nexus to the objects sought 
to be achieved by the Act. (1006-D-El 
1.2. It is a matter for legislature to balance the object of the parent 
Act with the object of protectising the rights of religious institutions and 
religious charities and on the basis of the material available to the E 
legislature, the decision to exempt the buildings of such religious 
institutions and religious charities has been taken. (1006-G] 
2.1. The power to exempt buildings belonging to religious institutions 
or religious charities is available to the legislature based on the fact 
situation arising out of the extension of the Act. Earlier views on such F 
tenancies and the extension of the legislation, cannot be held to be a ground 
for holding the present withdrawal arbitrary or unconstitutional. Nor can 
a tenant raise a contention that he had a vested right to the protection of 
a statute the benefit of which had been extended to him in between and in 
the absence of any such vested right, it is also not open to him to raise a G 
contention that the Act should not be made inapplicable to tenancies 
created by certain religious institutions or religious charities. (1006-B-C] 
2.2. Once the power to exe

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