1989 (5) TMI 319 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949.
2. Validity of the Notification dated September 24, 1974.
3. Jurisdiction of civil courts to pass decrees of eviction after the expiry of the exemption period.
4. Alleged discrimination between tenants of old and newly constructed buildings.

Summary:

Constitutionality of Section 3:
The appellants challenged Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949, arguing it delegates essential legislative functions to the Central Government without guidelines. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 3, referencing previous decisions like P.J. Irani v. The State of Madras and Sadhu Singh v. The District Board, Gurdaspur & Anr., which confirmed that similar provisions do not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power.

Validity of the Notification dated September 24, 1974:
The Notification exempted newly constructed buildings in Chandigarh from Section 13 of the Act for five years, allowing civil courts to pass decrees of eviction even after the exemption period expired. The appellants argued that this extended the exemption indefinitely and amended Section 13, contrary to the Act's purpose. The Court rejected this, stating the Notification aimed to incentivize new construction to alleviate accommodation shortages, ultimately benefiting tenants.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:
Appellants contended that civil courts lost jurisdiction to pass eviction decrees after the five-year exemption period expired. The Court held that the Notification preserved civil court jurisdiction for suits filed within the exemption period, even if decrees were passed later. This interpretation ensures the exemption's effectiveness, aligning with the Act's objective to encourage new construction and provide more accommodation.

Alleged Discrimination:
The appellants claimed the Notification discriminated between tenants of old and new buildings. The Court, referencing Mohinder Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., ruled that the classification based on construction date is rational and serves the Act's purpose. It promotes new construction, addressing accommodation shortages and ultimately benefiting tenants.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 3 and the validity of the Notification dated September 24, 1974. It ruled that civil courts retain jurisdiction to pass and execute eviction decrees for suits filed within the exemption period, even if the decrees are issued after the period expires. The Court found no discrimination between tenants of old and new buildings, affirming that the classification has a rational basis and aligns with the Act's objective. All appeals, special leave petitions, and writ petitions were dismissed with costs, and interim orders were discharged.