9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional Validity of Clause (b) of Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. 2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. Doctrine of Severability. Summary: 1. Constitutional Validity of Clause (b) of Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960: The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of clause (b) of section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which exempts buildings constructed on and after August 26, 1957, from the operation of the Act. The provision was initially intended to provide an incentive for new construction, but its continued application for over 26 years was challenged. 2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution: The petitioners argued that the exemption under clause (b) of section 32 violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Supreme Court noted that while the initial exemption might have been justified as a temporary measure to incentivize construction, its prolonged application had resulted in discrimination. The Court emphasized that "the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia" and "must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute." The Court found that the exemption had become discriminatory, as it created two classes of landlords and tenants without any rational basis, thus violating Article 14. 3. Doctrine of Severability: The Court addressed the issue of severability, determining whether the invalidity of clause (b) of section 32 would affect the rest of the Act. It concluded that clause (b) was not so inextricably bound with the rest of the Act as to render the entire Act unworkable. The Court held that the rest of the Act could stand independently and that the Legislature would have enacted the Act even without the impugned provision. The Court cited principles from previous judgments, stating that "a statute bad in part is not necessarily void in its entirety" and that "the general rule is that when a provision which is in the nature of an exception to a general statute is invalid, the general provisions of the statute are not invalidated thereby." Conclusion: The Supreme Court declared clause (b) of section 32 of the Act as unconstitutional and quashed it. The Court acknowledged the potential adverse effects on recent builders but emphasized the necessity of equality before the law. The Court left it to the State Legislature or Government to decide on potential amendments or notifications to provide incentives for new construction. The petitions were allowed, and clause (b) of section 32 was struck down without affecting the validity of any final decrees for eviction already executed.
|
