1994 (9) TMI 343 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 2(1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. Distinction between statutory and contractual tenants.
3. Heritability of statutory tenancy for residential and commercial premises.
4. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

Constitutionality of Section 2(1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
The petitioners, legal heirs of statutory tenants, challenged Section 2(1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They argued that the provision, which limits the rights of heirs of statutory tenants of residential premises, is discriminatory.

Distinction between Statutory and Contractual Tenants:
The petitioners contended that the Act does not distinguish between "contractual tenants" and "statutory tenants," and both should be treated alike regarding heritability. They cited the Supreme Court decisions in Damadilal v. Parashram and Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar, which held that statutory tenancies are heritable.

Heritability of Statutory Tenancy for Residential and Commercial Premises:
The petitioners argued that the rule of heritability should extend to statutory tenancies of both residential and commercial premises. They claimed that Section 2(1)(iii) of the Act, which restricts heritability for residential premises, is discriminatory and lacks a rational basis.

Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioners asserted that the differential treatment of heirs of statutory tenants of residential premises violates Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. They argued that the restrictions imposed by Section 2(1)(iii) are not based on any reasonable classification.

Court's Analysis and Conclusion:
The Court examined the scope and content of Article 14, emphasizing that it forbids discrimination but allows reasonable classification. The Court noted that the legislature has treated commercial tenancy differently from residential tenancy, recognizing the unique features and greater value of commercial tenancies.

The Court highlighted that commercial tenancies often involve businesses that are the sole source of livelihood for tenants and their families. The legislature's decision to afford greater protection to heirs of statutory tenants of commercial premises was deemed reasonable and based on rational classification.

The Court concluded that the provisions of Section 2(1)(iii) of the Act, which restrict the rights of heirs of statutory tenants of residential premises, are not discriminatory and do not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the statutory tenancies of residential and commercial premises are distinct categories with different characteristics, justifying the differential treatment.

Judgment:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions and rejected the special leave petition, upholding the constitutionality of Section 2(1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The provision was found to be fair, just, and reasonable, with no violation of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.