1983 (10) TMI 271 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Home Department Notifications.
2. Validity of Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
3. Delegation of legislative power and discrimination.
4. Authority to issue notifications under Section 3 of the Act.
5. Retrospective effect of the notifications.

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity of the Home Department Notifications:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Home Department Notification No. 352-LD-73/602 dated January 31, 1973, as modified by subsequent notifications, issued u/s 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, exempting buildings in Chandigarh from the Act for five years from the date of sewerage connection. The Court upheld the validity of these notifications, stating they were issued to encourage construction of new buildings, aligning with the Act's broader objective of mitigating tenant hardships by increasing housing supply.

2. Validity of Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949:
The petitioners questioned the validity of Section 3 of the Act, arguing it involved excessive delegation of legislative power. The Court rejected this contention, referencing previous decisions such as P.J. Irani v. The State of Madras and Sadhu Singh v. The District Board, Gurdaspur & Anr., which upheld similar provisions. The Court found Section 3 did not suffer from excessive delegation or violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. Delegation of Legislative Power and Discrimination:
The petitioners argued that the exemption granted by the notifications was outside the scope of the Act's object and policy and was discriminatory. The Court disagreed, stating the notifications aimed to encourage new construction to alleviate housing shortages, thereby balancing landlord and tenant interests. The classification of buildings into exempted and non-exempted categories was deemed reasonable and not discriminatory.

4. Authority to Issue Notifications under Section 3 of the Act:
The petitioners contended that only the Central Government could issue notifications u/s 3 of the Act, not the Chief Commissioner. The Court held that the Chief Commissioner, as the administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, had the authority to issue such notifications under Article 239(1) of the Constitution and the relevant notification issued by the President. Section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, supported this interpretation.

5. Retrospective Effect of the Notifications:
The petitioners argued the notifications should apply retrospectively to buildings constructed before January 31, 1973. The Court held that laws affecting substantive rights generally operate prospectively unless clearly stated otherwise. The language of the notifications did not indicate retrospective intent. Therefore, the exemptions applied only to buildings given sewerage or electric connections or occupied on or after January 31, 1973, not to those satisfying these conditions before that date.

Conclusion:
The Court declared Section 3 of the Act and the notifications valid and effective. The exemptions granted by the notifications were applicable only to buildings meeting the specified conditions on or after January 31, 1973. The petitions were dismissed without costs.