9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Summary: Issue 1: Constitutionality of Section 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 The primary issue raised in these writ petitions is the constitutional validity of sec. 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This provision exempts "any residential building or part thereof occupied by any one tenant if the monthly rent paid by him in respect of that building or part exceeds four hundred rupees" from the application of the Act. The petitioners argue that this classification of tenants based on the rent paid is arbitrary and lacks a reasonable nexus to the Act's objectives: regulation of letting, control of rents, and prevention of unreasonable eviction. Historically, the Act evolved from wartime measures and underwent several amendments, with sec. 30(ii) being introduced in 1960 and amended in 1961 and 1973. The Act's long title and preamble emphasize its aim to regulate the letting and control of rents of residential and non-residential buildings and to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants. The Court examined various sections of the Act, noting that the scheme and structure of the Act aim to regulate tenancy conditions, control rents, and prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants of all buildings, irrespective of rent. However, sec. 30(ii) arbitrarily denies these benefits to tenants of residential buildings paying more than four hundred rupees in rent, while tenants of non-residential buildings enjoy protection regardless of the rent amount. The counter affidavit filed by the State of Tamil Nadu attempts to justify the classification by claiming it protects weaker sections of tenants. However, the Court found no reasonable basis for distinguishing between tenants of residential and non-residential buildings or for the rent-based classification. The Court also noted that the provision's ceiling of four hundred rupees had become unrealistic over time due to the significant increase in rents. The Court referenced the case of Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where it was held that a provision valid at the commencement of an Act could later become unconstitutional due to changing circumstances. The Court concluded that sec. 30(ii) had become discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court declared sec. 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 unconstitutional and issued a writ to that effect. Petitions allowed.
|
