RAM KRISHAN GROVER AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 14-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI, L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
RAM KRISHAN GROVER AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8597 of 2019)
NOVEMBER 14, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI CJI, NAGESWARA RAO AND
SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Rent Control and Eviction:
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949:
s.13-B – Notification dated 09.10.2009 by Central
Government, extending Section 13-B and other related sections
(inserted in the Rent Act vide East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
(Amendment) Act, 2001) to the Union Territory of Chandigarh –
Provision of s. 13-B giving preferential right to claim eviction to
non-resident Indian – Constitutional validity of s. 13-B – Held:
Section 13-B is constitutional valid as also its extension and
applicability to the Union Territory of Chandigarh – East Punjab
Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 – Punjab
Re-organisation Act, 1966 – s. 87.
s. 13-B – Issuance of Notification dated 09.10.2009, u/s. 87
of the Re-organisation Act, extending Section 13-B in the
Amendment Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by executive
action – Validity of – Held: Extension of the Amendment Act to the
Union Territory of Chandigarh falls within the ambit of conditional
delegation and is valid and permissible – Once a policy of
extension of laws has been laid down by the Parliament and is
clear and permissible, it would only seem as an inevitable fallout
that the executive should be permitted to extend future amendments
to the existing laws – Thus, the challenge predicated on the
doctrine of excessive delegation, separation of powers, doctrine
of the law of agency, cannot be accepted – Administrative law –
Conditional delegation – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
(Amendment) Act, 2001 – Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 –
s. 87.
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
s. 13-B – Amendments made vide the Amendment Act with
regard to the rights of Non-Resident Indians by the State Legislature
of Punjab – Legislative competence of the State – Held:
Amendment Act enacted by the State legislature was well within its
competence – Amendment Act on its true construction and by
reference to the doctrine of “pith and substance” is relatable to
the relationship of landlord and tenant for housing and
accommodation and falls under the Concurrent List – Dominant
intention or “pith and substance” of the legislation is to regulate
the relationship between Non-Resident Indian landlords and tenants
for housing and accommodation – Merely because the Amendment
Act to achieve its object touches upon the subject matter in respect
of Non-Resident Indian landlords in the Rent Act, does not make
the Amendment or the Rent Act ultra vires the Constitution – In the
context of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and as the subject
matter falls within the Concurrent List, it would be immaterial to
decide on the competence of the legislating body – Power to make
laws in respect of a Union Territory vests with the Parliament under
Art.246(4) – In terms of s. 87 of the Re-organisation Act, the power
to extend laws to the Union Territory of Chandigarh vests with the
Central Government, that is the Parliament or the Central
Executive, as the case may be, and is permissible – Constitution
of India – Art. 246(4) – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
(Amendment) Act, 2001 – Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 –
s. 87.
s. 13-B – Plea that s. 13-B creates a special class of NRI
landlords, however, does not afford any legal remedy to the tenants
– Reasonability of – Held: By providing for a simplified procedure
of eviction by the Non-Resident Indians, s. 13-B does not dilute
the rights of tenants – It gives a chance to the tenants on merits to
establish their case and when justified and necessary to take the
matter to trial – Thus, s. 13-B cannot be held to be arbitrary and
unreasonable.
s. 13-B – s. 13-B classifying non-Resident Indian landlords
as a separate category – Validity of Section 13-B – Held: Section
13-B cannot be treated as an arbitrary classification that infringes
and violates Article 14 – It cannot be held to be unconstitutional
because it grants a right to claim eviction for bona fide need by
summary procedure to a certain group of landlords-Non-Resident
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
Indians subject to and on the satisfaction of statutory conditions
which incorporate a check on frivolous evictions – It rests with
the legislature to make laws and extend it to other similarly situated
persons – Rent Act(s) invariably give similar rights by a c

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