SH. GAURI SHANKAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 244 · Decided: 08-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SH. GAURI SHANKAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ, J. S. VERMA AND 
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : Section 2( l)(iii)(As introduced by Act 
18 of 1976). 
'Residential premises'-'Statutory Tenants'-Legal Heirs of-Provision 
restricting the right of heritability held valid and not violative of Articles 14 
and 21 of Constitutio1t-Statutory tenancies regarding residential premises are 
dis~nct and different from statutory tenancies regarding commercial premises. 
D 
Constitution of India 1950: Articles 14 and 21. 
Equality-Classification of tenancies-Residential tenancies and com-
mercial tenancies-Affording greater benefit to heir of statutory tenants of 
commercial premises and not to the heirs of statutory tenants of residential 
E premises held not discriminatory. 
The petitioners in these petitions are the legal heirs of "statutory 
tenants" of residential premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 
They challenged the validity of section 2 sub- section (1) clause (iii) of the 
Act, as introduced by Act 18 of 1976 with retrospective effect. It was con-
F 
tended on their behalf that (i) the provisions of the Act do not make any 
distinction between a "contractual tenant" and a "statutory tenant" and both 
are treated alike. Since the incidents of a contractual tenancy and a 
statutory tenancy are the same regarding the heritability, the provisions of 
section 2(1) (iii) of the Act which seek to limit or abridge the rights of the 
G heirs in so far as the residential premises are concerned, are discriminatory 
and violatiye of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) the rights of the 
heirs of a statutory tenant of the residential premises are hedged in by 
various limitations regarding the order of succession as stated in Explana-
tion I and are also otherwise abridged by Explanations II and III of the 
impugned provision depending upon their financial dependency. Such fet-
H ters or limitations1 do not exist in the case of the heirs of statutory tenants 
244 
GA URI SHANKER v. U.0.1. 
245 
in respect of the non-residential (commercial) premises. The differential A 
treatment so meted out to the heirs of a statutory tenant of a residential 
premises is not based on any rational distinction; (iii) this Court in 
Damadilal v. Parashram, (1976] 4 SCC 855 and Gian Devi Anand v.Jeevan 
Kumar and Ors., (1985] 2 SCC 683, has held that there is no distinction 
between a statutory tenant and a contractual and both are heritable. This is B 
so even under section 2(1) of the Act, before its amendment. Therefore, the 
restriction or the limitation regarding the heritability of the 'residential 
premises' brought in by the impugned provision has no rationale and is 
discriminatory; and (iv) the distinction in the heritability of statutory 
tenancy between residential premises and non-residential premises is not 
based on any reasonable classification and that it has no rational relation C 
to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that (i) the legislature 
has treated commercial tenancy differently from the residential tenancy 
and they are not similarly placed. Since the tenancy in respect of residen-
tial premises is distinct and different from ten~ncy in respect of the D 
commercial premises, the limitation or restriction of the rights of the heirs 
in so far as the residential premises are concerned, is a valid and permis-
sible classification and is not open to attack on the ground that it violates 
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and (ii) the reasoning and 
conclusion of this Court in Gian Devi Anand's case shows that the tenancy E 
of the residential premises and commercial premises are distinct and 
different and there exists a valid reason for limiting or abridging the rights 
of the heirs regarding residential premises. 
Dismissing the petitions, this Court 
HELD : 1. The provisions in section 2(1) (iii)' of the Delhi Rent 
Control Aet, 1958 which seeks to restrict or limit the right of the heirs, in 
so far as the statutory tenants of residential premises are concerned and 
to the extent provided therein, are not in any way discriminatory and do 
not offend the gilarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution. [257-G] 
2. A bare perusal of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, will show that 
the legislature has treated commercial tenancy 

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