VIVIAN JOSEPH FERREIRA & ANR. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 04-11-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
257 
VIVIAN JOSEPH FERREIRA & ANR. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPoRATION OF GREATER BOMBAY & 
ORS. 
November 4, 1971 
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DuA, S. C. Roy AND 
-G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Constitution 
of India, 
1950, Articles 14 and 
19(1) (/)-Bombay 
Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, XLVll of 1969-Ss. 27;. 
28, 29-Enactment to solve /rousing protJ/em in the city and the danger 
arising from coj/apse of old buildings-Tax on all reside/Ilia/ buildings.-
occupied by tenants at tire time of tire commencement of tire Act-Classi-
fication of buildings according to age and type of construction-Varying 
percentage of the rateable value of buildings charged as basic /evy-Coti-
stitutlona/ validitv of. 
Bombay B11iJding Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act XLVll of 
1969-Constitu!lona/ validity of. 
I 
Taxing Statute-Principle for determination of the· validity of. 
The Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, XL VII 
of 1969 was brought into force on October I, 1969. It was enacted as 
a temporary measure and was to expire on December 31, 
1970. The 
preamble of the Act recites collapses of residential buildings, acute short· 
age of housing accommodation and the problem of law and order arising 
from the increa_sing influx of persons iQto the city of Bombay in search 
of work as having necessitated its enactment. 
It also recites the recom-
mendations, suggestions and objections received by the government in 
response to the proposals made by it and its conclusion after consi<!ering 
them, as to t~e necessity for establishing a Board to deal with the prob· 
!ems. The Act is confined to residential buildings occupied by tenants at 
the time of the commencement of the Act. 
Section 28 els. ·(a) (O (J) 
exempts buildings exclusively occupied by the owners, 
buildings 
exclu· 
sively used for non-.residential purposes, buildings exclusively o::cupied on 
leave and licence, open land not built upon, buildings vesting in or leased 
to cooperative societies and buildings which might be erected after the 
commencement o_f the Act. 
Section 27 provides for the levy of tax on 
buildings and lands, save those exempted under s. 28, at rates of percentum 
of the rateable value of the properties as laid down in the Schedule to the 
Act. Section 29 divides the buildings so taxed into categories A, B and 
C. Buildings built prior to September- I. 1940 fall into c~egory A; those 
built between September 1. 1940 and December 31. 1950 fall into cate· 
gory B; and those built be!ween lanuary I. 1951 and the date on which 
the Act was brought into force fall into category C. Varying percentage 
of the rateable value of the buildings is charged as a basic levy and at a 
higher rate when any such building is structurally repaired. The Act thus 
makes three kinds of classif.
0 atioos namely, ( ll by confining the iax t<> 
the. resi~·~ntial t~nantcd buildings it classifies buildings which are used for 
res1dent1al purposes and am tenant•d, from the rest; (2) bv confirming 
the tax to such existing building it classifies them from those built after the 
date on which the Ad is !>rough! into force and (3) by dividing tho·e 
which are liable to tax into lbree cate~ories according to the three periods 
in which they were constructed. 
The amount recovered under the levy 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 2 S.C.R. 
is to be first credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State, and, there· 
after, to be transferred by a suitable appropriation to the fund designated 
as the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Fund. An owner 
who is required to pay the tax pays only 10% of the ra~>able veilue of 
the building and is entitled to recover the balance from the tenant by 
making a corresponding increase in the rent payable 
by 
such tenant. 
During the life of the Act such an owner is not bound to keep the premises 
let in good and tenantable repair. 
Owners of two residential buildings in the city of !3ombay neither of 
which was, by reason of its having been recently constructed, either dilapi-
dated or in dangerous condition challenged the constitutiorolity of the 
Act on the grounds ( i) the tax amounted to unreasonable restriction and 
could not be said to be for a public purpose in that it benefited neglectful 
and 
defaulting 
owners, and, therefore, violated Art. 19(1) (f) of the 
Copstitution; (ii) the Act was discriminatory and, therefore, infringed 
Art. 14 because, (a) the classification of

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