Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1953 (12) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... now represented by the State of Bombay purchased the camp and entrusted the management thereof to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board--a body constituted by a Government Resolution. In the same year the Bombay Housing Board, the respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the Board), was established by the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIX of 1948) as a body corporate, competent to acquire and hold property. The purposes of the Act included the management and use of lands and buildings belonging to or vested in the Board. The Board is authorised to frame and execute housing schemes. Undersection3(3)the Board.is to be deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of that Act and the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , rent of ₹ 56-8 per month the Board would waive the notice to quit. The petitioner not having agreed to pay the revised rent the Board took proceedings against the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay to recover possession of the premises in his occupation. The petitioner took the plea, inter alia, that he was protected by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947) popularly called the Bombay Rent Act. The Board, however, contended that its premises were exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent Act by virtue of section 4 of that Act which runs as follows:- This Act shall not apply to any premises belonging to the Government or a local authority or apply as against the Gov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution and accordingly on the 14th February, 1952, passed an order for delivery of possession of the two rooms to the Board but directed that the warrant for possession should not be issued until the 15th May, 1952. The petitioner moved the High Court in revision. The High Court found that it was difficult to hold that the Board was a local authority but held that section 3-A -introduced by the amending Act had retrospectively extended the exemption contained in section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act to the Board. The High Court further held that there had been no infraction of the petitioner's fundamental right under article 14 and dismissed the application for revision. The petitioner applied to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of any of the Co-operative Housing Societies is a tenant of such society. No lease or other document has been produced in support of the suggestion that the Cooperative Housing Societies have any tenant at all. Further, though these Co-operative Housing Societies are no doubt incorporated bodies, they nevertheless may earn profits which may be distributed amongst their members. The Board, on the other hand, is an incorporated body brought into existence for the purpose of framing housing schemes to solve the problem of acute shortage of accommodation in Bombay. There are no shareholders interested in the distribution of any profit. It is under the control of the Government and acts under the orders of the Government. In effect, it is a Gove .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... authority or the Board, would be actuated by any profit making mot as to unduly enhance the rents or eject the tenants from their respective properties as private Ian are or are likely to be. Therefore, the tenants Government or local authority or the Board are not in need of such protection as the tenants of private landlords are and this circumstance is a cogent basis for differentiation. The two classes of tenants are not, by force of circumstances placed on an equal footing and the tenants of the Government or local authority or the Board cannot, therefore, complain of any denial of equality before the law or of equal protection of the law. There is here no real discrimination, for the two classes are not similarly situated. Neither se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates