9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Rent Control Acts. 2. Reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the Rent Control Acts. 3. Retrospective application of the Amending Act of 1950. 4. Applicability of Section 18(1) of the Rent Control Act to orders made by the Small Cause Court. 5. Applicability of Section 18(1) to consent orders. Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the Rent Control Acts: The petitioner argued that the Rent Control Acts were ultra vires the Constitution of India, particularly Article 19(1)(f), which guarantees the right to hold property. The contention was that the restrictions imposed by these Acts were unreasonable and not in the interests of the general public as required by Clause (5) of Article 19. The court held that whether a restriction is reasonable must depend on the circumstances existing when the legislation was enacted. The Rent Acts were enacted to address the grave housing shortage caused by the war and the partition of Bengal, which created serious problems in the State. The court found that the restrictions imposed by the Rent Acts were not only reasonable but absolutely necessary to prevent tenants from being at the mercy of landlords and to maintain law and order. 2. Reasonableness of Restrictions Imposed by the Rent Control Acts: The court elaborated that the increase in the cost of building materials and maintenance did not necessarily make the Rent Control Act of 1950 unreasonable. The restrictions were justified to prevent exorbitant rents and mass evictions, which would have led to serious consequences. The court emphasized that the restrictions were necessary in the interests of the general public, particularly considering the housing crisis post-partition. 3. Retrospective Application of the Amending Act of 1950: The petitioner argued that the retrospective application of the Amending Act of 1950 was unreasonable and interfered with accrued rights. The court acknowledged that retrospective legislation is generally considered unreasonable but found that the circumstances in West Bengal justified this approach. The Amending Act was necessary to provide relief to tenants who had defaulted on rent for three consecutive months and were facing eviction due to the court's earlier decisions. The court held that making the provisions retrospective was reasonable in the interest of the general public to prevent mass evictions and potential unrest. 4. Applicability of Section 18(1) of the Rent Control Act to Orders Made by the Small Cause Court: The petitioner contended that Section 18(1) did not apply to orders made by the Small Cause Court under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, as these were "orders" and not "decrees." The court rejected this argument, noting that the protection under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act of 1950 applied to both decrees and orders. The marginal note of Section 18(1) indicated the intention to give relief to all tenants, whether sued in the Small Cause Court or any other court. The court concluded that the word "decree" in Section 18(1) was intended to cover orders of the Small Cause Court. 5. Applicability of Section 18(1) to Consent Orders: In Civil Revision Case No. 1370 of 1950, the petitioner argued that Section 18(1) did not apply to consent orders. The court examined previous decisions and found that a consent decree showing default in rent payment could be set aside under similar provisions. The court determined that the order in question was not a typical consent order but was made on the ground of default in rent payment after the tenant's application for adjournment was refused and his advocate confessed judgment. Therefore, the order fell within the terms of Section 18(1). Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 18(1) of the Rent Control Act of 1950, as amended, was intra vires the Constitution and applied to orders of the Small Cause Court. The retrospective application of the Amending Act of 1950 was deemed reasonable in the interest of the general public. The orders of the Small Cause Court were upheld, and the tenants were entitled to relief under Section 18(1). The petitions failed and were dismissed with costs.
|
