S. KANDASWAMY CHETTIAR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 12-12-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
393 
S. KANDASWAMY CHETTIAR 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
I 2th December, 1984 
(V. D. TuLZAPURKAR, R. S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.) 
Tamil Nodu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu 
Act 18 of 1960), Section 29-Notl/icatlon Issued thereunder granting total 
exemption to all buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious 
Public Trusts and Public Charitable Trusts from all the pro,fslons of the Act-
Whether suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of fegislative powers, and 
therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution-Whether the total exemp-
tfan is excessive unwarranted and unsupportable In as much as a partial exemp· 
tion would ha-1e sufficed. 
Io exercise of the powers conferred by section 29 of the Tamil Nadu 
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 the Government of Tamil 
Nadu issued a Notification G.O. Ms. lOOQ (Home Department) dated 16th 
August, 1976 exempting all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian 
and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts from all the 
provisions of the Act. The tenants challenged the Notification granting 
total exemption through the said Notification on three grounds namely; (a) 
that section 29 of the Act suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of 
legislative powers in as much as it vests in the State Government unguided 
and uncontrolled discretion in the matter of granting exemptions and is, 
therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (b)tbat the Not.ification 
dated 16th August, 1976 deprives the tenants of all such buildings (belonging 
to HinduJ Christian and Muslim religious public trusts 3.nd public chantable 
trusts) of the equal protection of the beneficial provisions of the Act which 
is available to the te.nants of other buildings and as such the same is 
discriminatory offending against the equal protection clause of Article 14; 
and (c) that io any event the total exemption from all the provisions of the 
Act granted to such buildings, where partial exemption would have sufficed 
is excessive~ unwarranted and unsupportable. 
The State Government and the respondent landlords have refuted all 
the grounds on which the exemption has been challenged and further sought 
to justify the grant of total exemption mainly on the basis that the freedom 
(right) to recover the reasonable market rent would be ineffective without 
.. e 
• 
the freedom to evict the tenant. 
~. • 
Dismissing the writ petitions and the civfl appeals the Court, 
•. 
S.K. CHBTTIAR v. TAMiL NADU 
399 
HELD : 1.1 In view of the decision of the Supreme Court io I'. J. 
A 
Irani v. The State of Madras, [t962] 2 SCR t~9 dealing with an identical 
provision contained in the earlier Madras enactment the challengo to tho 
Constitutional validity of section 29 cannot be sustained. [4 '5A•B] 
"l', 
P. J, Irani v. S1a1e of Madras, [1962] 2 SCR 169; State of Madhya 
Pradesh v. Kanhalyalal, 1970 (15) M.P.L.U. SC 973 relied on. 
1.2. The rationale behind the conferal of such power to grant 
exemptions or to make exceptions is that an inflexible application or the 
provisions of the A ct may under some circumstances result in unnecessary 
hardship eat irely disproportionate to the good which will result from a 
literal enrorcement of the Act and also the practical impossibility of 
anticipating in advance such hardship to such e1ceptional cases; In the 
matter of bencficia11egis1ations also there are bound to be cases in which an 
in fte;x:ible application of the provisions of the enactment may result in 
unnecessary and undue hardship not contemplated by the Jcgisla(ure. 
The 
power to grant exemption under section 29 of the Act, therefore, has been 
conferred not for making any discrimination between ter;tants and tenants but 
to avoid undue hardship or abuse of the beneficial provisions that may 
result from uniform application of such provisions to cases which dcservo 
different treatment. Of course, the power to grant exemption has to be 
exercised in accordance with the policy and object of the 
enactment 
gatherable from the prearr,ble as well as its operative provisions without 
subverting the general purpose of the enactment. [406G-H, 407A-B] 
P. J. Irani v. State of Madras, [1962] 2 SCR 169 relied oo. 
Gorleb v. Fox, [1926] 71 Lawyers Edition at Dage 1230 quoted with 
approval. 
2. That Tamil Nadu Act is a piece of beneficial legislation intended to 
remedy the two evils

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