SWAMI MOTOR TRANSPORT (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER versus SRI SANKARASWAMIGAL MUTT AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 26-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
Sept~mber 26. 
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
SWAMI MOTOR TRANSPORT (P) LTD. 
AND ANOTHER 
v. 
SRI SANKARASWAMIGAL MUTT 
AND ANOTHER 
(And Connected Appeals) 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. ]. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, 
K. N. WANCHCO, J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Landlord and Tenant-Tenant building on leased /and-
Rigltt of purchase-Whether property-Withdrawal of protection 
of non-residential building to certain towns-Whether discrimina-
tory or a restriction right of property-l!feaning of Property-
Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921(Ill of 1922), s.9, as 
amended by Act XIX of 1955 and Act XIiI of 1960-0onstitu-
tion of India, Arts. 14, 19 and 31. 
Each of the appellants in the two appeals who were tenants 
of land in Tanjore on which non-residential premhes had 
been constructed by them, applied to the Munsif under s. 9 of 
the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921(III of 1922) to 
have the respective sites conveyed to them after fixing the sale 
price as contemplated by the Act. 
Pending the decision of Lhe 
applications by the Munsif, the protection and rights given to 
the tenants who had constructed buildings on leased lands by the 
Principal Act was withdrawn by Act XIII of 1960, in respect 
of non-residential buildings in Tanjore but with regard to the 
cities 
of 
Madras, 
Salem, 
Madurai, 
Coimbatore and 
Tiruchirappalli the protection and rights were retained both as 
regards residential 
buildings and 
non-residential buildings. 
The appellants applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution to 
the High Court of Madras praying for a mandamus directing 
the Munsif to determine their applications under s. 9 of the 
Principal Act as extended to the town of Tanjore by Notification 
and the Act of l 955 ignoring Act XIII of 1960 which was 
impugned as offending Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. 
The High Court upheld the· validity of the Act following the 
earlier decision of that Court. 
HeU, that confining the protection to reddenti;ll buildings 
only in the tr>wn of Tanjore w~ile g~ving ~ro~ectl~n to tenants 
of both residential and non-res1dentlal bmldmgs m the other 
1 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
283 
towns was based upon real differences between Tanjore and the 
other tov.'ns regarding the pressure on non-reside11tial accommo-
dation and other relevant factors including population and that 
the differentiation was related to the object namely protecting 
tenants of residential buildings principally and also of non-
residential buildings where the need was most felt. 
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. 'l'endolkar 
[1959] S.C.R. 279, Bhurlan Chaudhry v. State of Bihar, [1955] 
I S.C.R. 1045 and The State of West Bengal. v. Anwar Ali, 
[1952] S.C.R. 284, referred to. 
Held, further, that Art. 19(l)(f) guarantees both abstract 
as well as concrete rights of property and that property has the 
same meaning in Art. 19(l)(f) and Art. 31(1). 
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose [1954] S.C.R. 
587, The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras 
v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, [1954] 
S.C.R. 1005 and Chiranjit Lal Choudhury v. Union of India, 
[1950] 869, referred to. 
Held, further, that 'law' under Art. 31 must be a valid 
law and to be valid it must stand the test of other fundamental 
rights including Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 
Kava/,appara 
Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras, 
[1960) 3 S.C.R., 887 referred to. 
Held, further, that the right to purchase property conferred 
by a Statute is in its nature the same as the right of'purchase 
conferred by contract and in neither event could it amount to a 
right of property. 
Maharana ShriJayvantsinghji Ranma/,sin/ighji etc. v. The 
State of Gujrat, [1662) Supp:-2 S. C. R. 411. 
Held, also that the principal Act did not confer a right on 
the t<·~1ant to the superstructure and therefore, the impugned 
Act did not take away any such right. 
Crvn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals 
Nos. 228 and 229 of 1962. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated 
June 26, 1961 of the Madras High Court in W p 
Nos. 829 and 833 of 1960. 
· · 
A. V. V~natka Sastri, 
G. 
Rama.swami, 
J.B. Dadackan3i, 0. O. Mathur and Ravinder Narain 
for the appellants. 
' 
1962 
Swami Motor Tran. 
port (P) Ltd. 
v. 
Sri Sankaraswa. 
mfgal Mutt 
1962 
Swami Motor Trans-
port (P) Ltd. 
v. 
Sri Sankaraswa-
migal Mutt 
Subha Rao, J. 
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
S. Kothandamma Nayannr and M.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.