RATTAN ARYA ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 596 · Decided: 16-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
596 
RAl"l'AN ARYA ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF TAKIL NADU & ANR. 
APRIL 16, 1986 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, B.C. RAY AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, 
s. 30(ii) - Provisions excepting from the application of the 1ir 
Act residential buildings fetching rent exceeding four hundred 
rupees - Whether violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
c 
Section 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and a. 
Rent Control) Act, 1960 excepted from the application of the 11""'" 
Act residential buildings which fetched a rent of more than ~ 
rupees two hundred and fifty per month and non-residential 
buildings which fetched a rent of more than rupees four 
hundred per month. This provision was amended in 1961 to make 
D 
the 
exception 
applicable to either a building or part 
thereof. In 1964, the provision relating to the exception made 
in the case of non-residential buildings was deleted with the 
result that tenants of these buildings were entitled to the 
protection afforded by the Act irrespective of the rent paid ;IA 
by them. The section was further amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 
E 
of 1973 by substituting the figure rupees four hundred for the 
figure of rupees 
two hundred and fifty in respect of 
....
residential buildings or part thereof. 
.... 
The petitioners in their writ petitions challenged the y 
vires of this provisions, contending that though the Act was 
F 
designed to apply generally to all residential and non--A 
residential buildings, residential buildings or parts thereof ~ 
fetching a rent of more than rupees four hundred were singled 
out and taken out of the purview of the Act by s, 30(ii) 
arbitrarily and without any reason. 
The petitions were 
contested by the State Government contending in their counter-
G 
affidavit to the writ petitions that the classification of the 
protected buildings and exempted buildings on the basis of the 
rent was a reasonable one, consistent with the object of the • 
Act and was not discriminatory. 
Allowing the writ petitions, the Court, 
H 
-
RATrAN ARYA v. STATE 
597 
. 
BILD : 1. Section 30(11) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings 
A: (Leaee and Rent Control) Act, 1960 has to be sturclt down as 
violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution since the distinction 
made by it between the tenant of a residential building and 
the tenant of a non-residential building and that based on 
A 
rent paid by the respective tenants has no reasonable neXUB to 
B 
the object of the Act which is aimed at regulating the 
conditions of tenancy, controlling the rents and preventing 
..r unreasonable eviction of tenants of all residential and non-
residential buildings. [606 D; 602 G-H; 603 A] 
To say that a non-residential building is different from 
a residential building is lll!rely to say what is self-evident 
" and means nothing. It has not been shown in the instant case 
that the tenants of non-residential buildings are in a 
..I disadvantageous 
position 
as 
compared 
with 
tenants 
of 
residential buildings and, 
therefore, 
they need greater 
protection. Tenants of both kinds of buildings equally need 
the protection of the beneficient provision 
of the Act. 
(604 C-D] 
2. By one stroke s. 30(ii) denies the benefits conferred 
by the Act on all tenants to tenants of residential buildings 
l'J.. fetching a rent in excess of four hundred rupees. While the 
tenant of a non-residential building is protected, whether the 
rent is rupees fifty, five hundred or five thousand per month, 
a tenant of a residential building is protected if the rent is 
rupees fifty, but not if it is five hundred or five thousand 
per month. It cannot be said that the tenant of a residential 
'j building paying a rent of rupees five hundred is able to 
. protect himself better than the tenant of a non-residential 
"-building paying a rent of rupees five thousand per month, or 
that the tenant of a residential building who pays a rent of 
rupees five hundred per month is not in need of any statutory 
protection. [602 E-G] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
3. It cannot be pretended that the exclusion of tenants, 
G 
who pay higher rent, from the purview of the Act will help to 
protect tenants 
belonging to the weaker sections of the 
-. conmmity. It is one thing to say that tenants belonging to 
the weaker sections of the people need protection, and an 
altogether different thing to say that denial of protection to 
tenants paying higher rents will protect the weaker sections 
H 
of 
the 
soci

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