LexRAGHUNATH GOPAL MANJIRE & ANR. versus THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• 193 RAGHUNATH GOPAL MANJIRE & ANR. v. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ORS. November 16, 1977 [N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] Bombav Housing Board Act, 1942, Ss. 66, 67(1), 68, 73A rlw Board's Regulation$ 3, 4, 6 and 7 and Govern1nent of India letter No. 5/24162/H-I dacd 20-~-66-Scope of -JVhether the State has the power to give directions .and the Board to enhance the rent and de!nand the past and future rent. Pursuant to the scheme for construction of houses for industrial \VO~kers to be let to them at a subsidised rent framed by the Government of Indla in 1946, the State of Bombay passed the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948. Section 66 of the Act empowered the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the said Act. Section 67 provided that the Housing P.oard, a statutory body, created under s. 3 of the Act "may from time to time with the previous sanction of the State Government, make regu- lations consistent with this Act and that of any rule made under this Act." Section 68 also empov.·ered the Board to make its bye-laws. Section 73A of the Act further provided that 'the State Government may give the Board such directions as in its opinion are necessary and expedient for carrying ~ut the purposes of the Act. It shall be the duty of. the Board to COf!Iply w·1th such directions." The Board framed u/s 67 the relevant regulations for implementing the scheme. Regulation 3 cla<isified the residential tenements into (i) those exclusive}iy reserved for industrial v.·orkers and (ii) those open to the general public for the low i!l-come gro?ps (including industrial wor~e:s). As per Regulation 3 "tenements ·in class (1) shall be let at such subs1d1sed rates as Government may by special orders fix, while tenements in class (ii) shall be let at the economic rent calculated in accordance 'vith the formula decided by Government from time to time.". Eligibility for the unreserved tenements ac; per regulation 6 was limited by the maximum total income of all the earning members of the applicant's family proposing to lodge together. Under regulation 7 "the maximum limit of family income in relation to sub- . -sidised rents shall be Rs. 350 /- per mensem and in relation to economic rent Rs. 500/- per mensem." As per regulation 19 the successful applicants were -required to execute an. agreement in Form II and also give an undertaking to pay the rent and service charges including water tax and other charges as may, from time to time, be levied and er fixed by or on behalf of the Board. filld also to accept its addition as final and binding. The appellants are industrial workers, who were allotted tenements in 1959 as per the tenancy agreements executed by them in accordance with the regulation 19 in Form II and were paying a subsidised reilt of RJ. 27 /- plus the monthly service charges. They have also given the prescribed under- taking. As per the decision taken at the Housing Ministers' Conference in December 1964 regarding retention of house built under the subsidised industrial schemes by allottees on their crossing the wage limit of Rs. 350/- per month and communicated by the Government of India through its letter No. 524/62/H-J dt. 20th April 1966, the State Government, in· its turn, wrote to the Board on 8·7-1967, to the effect that, consequent to the clarifica- tions of the Government of India that tenements constructed under the subsi- <lised industrial housing schemes are to be alJotted to the industrial workers whose n1onthly income does not exceed Rs. 350/- on payment of subsidised rent only and that those who have crossed the \\'age lim_it of Rs. 350 /- per 1!1en~em. subseqtlently are neither entit1ed to retain the tenements, nor to get ·subsidy 1n rent beyond three months' from the date of crossing, it has consi- <lered syrr1pathetically the question of eviction of v,rorkers who had crossed the prescribed ·wage limit of Rs. 350/-. per mensem and decided that such te'!lants who have exceeded 'vage limit of Rs. 350 /- should be allowed to re- t:un the tenements by charging them grade<l incr~ase. Notices were, therefore, A c D E F G H A B c D E F G 194 SUPREME COTIRT REPORTS [1978] 2 S.C.R. issued by the .Board on 10-10-1972 and 31-1-73 to appellants 2 and l calling upon the1n to pay the enhanced rent \vith effect from 20th April 1966 and. 1-2-1968 respectively. The appellants filed a \Vrit petition in the High Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.