Baburao Shantaram More v. The Bombay Housing Board and Another.

1954 • quite properly in doing so. In our opinion there is no 1¥ aryam Singh ground on which in an appeal by special leave under and Another ,. article 136 we should interfere. The appeal, therefore, Amarnalh and must stand dismissed with costs.

Another. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellants : M. M. Sinha.

Agent for the respondent: K. L. Mehta.

1953 BABURAO SHANTARAM MORE

bee. 18. v.

THE BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD AND

ANOTHER.

[PATANJ ALI SASTRI C. J., s. R. DAS,

VIVIAN BosE, GHULAM HASAN and

JAGANNADHADAS JT.J

Constitution of India, art. 14-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodg-ing House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947), s. 4-Bombay Housing Board (Amendment) Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951) inserting new s. 3-A in Bombay Housing Board Act (Act LXIX of 1948)-Whether ultra vires the Constitution.

Held, that neither s. 4 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947) nor the new s. 3-A inserted in Bombay Housing Board Act, (Act LXIX of 1948) by the Amending Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951) is ultra vires art. 14 of the Constitution.

The facts and argurnents are sufficiently stated in the Judgtnent.

ORIGINAL JullisnicnoN PETITION No. 271 of 1952 : Petition for special leave to appeal No. 108 of 1952. Petition under article 32 of the Constitution and petition for special leave against the Judgment and Order stated the 7th July, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Chagla C. J. and Gajendra-gadkar J.) in Civil Revision Application No. 567 of 1952.

/. B. Dadachanji for the petitioner.

M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Porus A. Mehta, with them) for the respondents .

1953. December 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs J.

DAs J.-The petitioner before us is in occupation of 1953 ·two rooms Nos. 387 and 388 in Barrack No. T-93 in Baburao Sion Dharavi Camp· in Greater Bombay. The camp Shantaram More consisting of several tenements was constructed and . ·v . . The Bombay owned by the Government of India during the last Hotising Board~ world war for the use of the military. In 1948 the · and Another. Government of Bombay now represented by the State ·Das]. · 0£ Bombay purchased the camp and entrusted the management thereof to the Bombay Provincial Hous-ing 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._ Under section 3(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. Section 54 (3) provides that all assets en-trusted to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board shall upon a declaration made by the Government of Bom-bay vest in the Board. On 1st June, 1949, the Govern-ment of Bombay having made the necessary declara-tion the Sion Dharavi Camp vested in 'the Board.

It appears ,that before the camp was made over to the Bombay Provincial Housing -Board certain persons including the petitioner had, without any authority or title, occupied portions ·of the camp. An arrangement was made that the petitioner and the other persons who had gone into occuptation of portions of the camp would pay such rent as would be fixed by the Govern-ment of Bombay. The Government of Bombay undertook to carry out certain repairs to the camp with the object of reconditioning the same and tl1e petitioner and others also agreed to pay such rent as the Govern-ment would then fix. The petitioner and others si uned a letter embodying the terms of the agreement. "'The petitioner's rent was originally fixed at Rs. 14 per month. The Government of Bombay then reconditioned 1953 the structures at considerable cost and the revised

rent in respect of the rooms in the occupation of the Baburao petitioner worked out at Rs. 56-8 per month.

Shantaram More

v.

The Bombay In or about February, 1950, the Board served a Housing Board and Another. notice on the petitioner calling upon him to quit and

Das]. vacate the rooms in his occupation at the end of

March, 1950. An intimation was also given by that notice that if the petitioner agreed to pay the revised rent of Rs. 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 be-longing to the Government or a local authority or apply as against the Government to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of premises taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government ; but it shall apply in respect of premises taken on lease or in respect of premises let to the Government or a local authority." · The petitioner's rejoinder was that the Board was not a local authority and could not, therefore, claim the benefit of section 4 and further that that section was unconstitutional in that it offended against the equal protection clause of the Constitution. During the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of Small Causes the Bombay Housing Board Act was amended by the Bombay Housing Board (Amendment) Act (Act XI of 1951). Section 3-A which was added by the amending Act is in the word following :-

"3-A. For the removal of doubt, it is hereby 1953 declared that the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging Baburao House Rates Control Act, 1947,- Shantaram Mor6 v. ( a) shall not apply nor shall be deemed to have The Bombay s_ver applied to any land or building belonging to or llousitzg Board and Another. vesting in the Board under or for the purposes of this Act; DasJ.

(b) shall not apply nor shall be deemed to have ever applied as against the Board to any tenancies or other like relationship created by the Board in respect of such land or building ;

( c) but shall apply to any land or building let to the Board."

The trial court held that the Board was a local authority within the meaning of section 4 of the Bom-bay Rent Act and that that section did not contravene the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution and ac-cordingly 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 intro-duced by the amending Act had retrospectively ex-tended 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 the Bombay High Court for leave to appeal to this court but that application was rejected. The peti-tioner has now applied before us for special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court. He has also made a subs tan ti ve application under article 32 for enforcement of his fundamental rights. Both these applications have been posted together before us for hearing and disposal.

The on! y point urged before us by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the said section 1953 3-A which exempts lands or buildings belonging Babura• to or vested in the Board from the operation of the Shantaram More Bombay Rent Act offends against the equal protec-

v. tion · clause of the Constitution. He points out that The Bombay Bowing Board there are in Bombay numerous Co-operative Housing and Another. Societies incorporated under the Co-operative Societies

Das]. Act which are similarly situated and whose object is

also to solve housing problem but their lands and buildings are not exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent 'Act. The result is that while the tenants of those Co-operative Housing Societies are fully protected by the Bombay Rent Act against enhancement of rent and ejectment, the tenants of the Board are, by virtue of section 3-A, denied the protection of the Bombay Rent Act. The Co-opera-tive Societies Act does not in terms bring about any relationship of landlord and tenants between a Co-operative Housing Society incorporated under that Act and its memebrs. There is nothing in that Act to indicate that any of the members of any of the Co-operative Housing Societies is a tenant of such society. No lease or other document has been pro-duced in support of the suggestion that the Co-operative 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 pro-blem of acute shortage of accommodation in Bombay. There are no shareholders interested in the distribu-tion of any profit. It is under the control of the Government and acts under the orders of the Govern-ment. In effect, it is a Government sponsored body not having any profit making motive. No material has been placed before us which may even remotely be regarded as suggesting, much less proving, that the Co-operative Housing Societies or their members stand similarly situated vis-a-vi"S the Board and its tenants. The petlt10ner, therefore, cannot sustain his complaint of discrimination on this ground.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then said that 1953 the effect of section 3-A is to extend the benefit of the -=.:::... Bahurao exemption of section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act to Shantaram Mor1 the Board which, in other words, implies that the v. The Bombay name of the Board has been added in section 4 after Housing Board the local authority. The contention is that section 4 and Another. discriminates against the tenants of properties belong-Da;J. ing to the Government, local authority or the Board in that these tenants are denied the benefits of the Bombay Rent Act which are available to all other tenants in Bombay. There can be no question that this exemption is given by section 4 to certain classes <lf tenants and this classification is based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes them from <lther tenants and this differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. It is the business of the Government to solve the accommodation problem and satisfy the public need of housing accommodation. It was for the purpose of achieving this object that the Board was incorporated and established. It is not to be expected that the Government or local atuhority or the Board would be. actuated by any profit making motive so as to unduly enhance the rents or eject the tenants from their respective properties as private landlords are or are likely to be. Therefore, the tenants of the Government or local authority or the Board are not in need of such protection as the tenants of private landlords are and this circumstances is a cogent basis for differentiation. The two classes of tenants arn 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 section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act nor section 3-A of the Bombay Housing Board Act can, therefore, be challenged as unconstitutional on the ground of con-travention of article 14 of the Constitution.

No other point has been urged before us.

1953 We dismiss both the applications. The pet1t10ner Baburao must pay one set of costs of the application under Shantaram More article 32.

v.

The Bombay Petitions dismissed. Housing Board Agent for the petitioner : Rajinder Narain.

and Another.

Agent for the respondents : G. H. Rajadhyaksha.

1953 DUNICHAND HAKIM AND OTHERS

Dec. 18 v.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (DEPUTY

CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY)

KARNAL, STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS.

[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., s. R. DAS,

VIVIAN BosE, GHuLAM HASAN and

JAGANNADHADAS JJ.J

Administration of Evacuee Property Act (Act XXXl of 1905), ss. 2, 12, 56(2)-Evacuee property-Allotment-Cancellation of-Jurisdiction of Deputy Custodian-Notice for cancellation, whe-tlier essential-Orders of cancellation of allotment-Validity of.

Held, that the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property has jurisdiction to cancel the allotment of land both under the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, XIV of 1947 as well as under the Administration of Evacuee Property (Act XXX! of 1950), ss. 2(a) 12(1) and 56(2), the latter Act re-placing the former Act.

That no notice was provided for cancellation of an allotment under the rules framed under section 56.

That the petitioners-allottees in the present case were given notice and had full opportunity to put forward their case before their allotments were cancelled.