Civil Appeal Nos2461 2463 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 781987 of the Rajasthan High Court in DBC Writ Petition Nos
1374 1987 and 1453 of 1987
Badri Das Sharma for the Appellants
PG NO 495 Tapas Ray and SK Jain for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR J
What may appear  to be equal treatment accorded in obeisance to the equality doctrine embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution in its application in reality  may result in denial of equality and may
accordingly be liable to be condemned for defying the equality doctrine
This has been illustrated by the provision embodied in Ordinance No 278 E dii of the Ordinance of University of Rajasthan which provides for uniform addition of 5 marks to the students applying for admission to the post graduate course in any one of the five Medical Colleges provided the student has passed his final MBBS Examination from the College to which admission in post graduate course is sought
The said provision has been held to be unconstitutional and in our opinion the conclusion reached by the High Court is right though the reasoning which has commended itself to this Court is somewhat different
Three Writ Petitions were instituted in the Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench by the Writ Petitioners who sought admission to post graduate courses in the Colleges affiliated to the Rajasthan University
There are five such Medical Colleges at five different centres in Rajasthan viz Jaipur Bikaner Udaipur Jodhpur and Ajmer
It appears that for the purpose of securing admission to these Colleges the applicants seeking admission have to appear at a competitive examination called PMG
The passing of this Examination is a pre condition for securing admission to the PMG course any one of the aforesaid five Colleges in Rajasthan
The PMG competitive examination is common  for all the five Medical Colleges
There one syllabus and one combined examination is conducted by th University
The successful candidates are entitled to addition of 5 marks in the percentage of aggregate marks by way of institutional preference if the concerned candidates had passed the final MBBS Examination
conducted by the Rajasthan University
A further addition of 5 of marks by way of institutional preference in the sense of preference dependent on the particular Medical College at which the concerned candidate has passed his final MBBS examination is also provided
It is this college based institutional preference which has given rise to the present controversy
Such preference is rooted in the impugned provision namely Ordinance 278 Ed which deserves to be quoted d The total marks so obtained shall be converted into PG NO 496 percentage
The percentage so obtained shall be increased as follows i By 5 if the applicant passed the final MBBS Examination from the Rajasthan University
ii By another 5 if the applicant passed the Final MBBS Examination from the same institution for which selections are being made
 The Writ Petitioners contended that this provision violated the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and was accordingly unconstitutional
It appears that while each of the five Medical Colleges in Rajasthan is conducting post graduate courses in specified specialities and super specialities the Doctors who have graduated from all the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan by and large consider admission to post graduate courses at SMS College at Jaipur as most advantageous
In other words securing admission in post graduate course at Jaipur in SMS College is considered to be achievement and the courses at Jaipur are the most sought after courses
The reasons underlying this keenness to secure admission in Jaipur College are understandable inasmuch as i there are many more seats available for PG courses and ii there are many more specialities available at the Jaipur College as compared to other Colleges A Tabular statement reflecting the positions of seats in the five Medical Colleges may best scrutinized Subject SMS SN
RNT SP
JIN Total Medical Medical Medical Medical Medical College College College College College Jaipur Jodhpur Udaipur Bikaner Ajmer 1Genl
surgery 174 102 82 82 82 5112 2
Medicines215 92 103 102 113 6115 3
TBCD 21 10 10 00 0 41 4 Skin  VD 2 11 00 00 00 31 PG NO 497 5 Psychiatry 31 00 00 110 00 41 6
Obst
184 82 82 82 82 5012 7
Medicine113 51 41 41 41 287 8
Anaesthesia 113 41 41 41 41 277 9Radio Diagnosis 20 21 21 21 20 103 10
Radio Therapy 11 00 00 10 00 21 11
ENT 20 11 10 10 11 62 12
Opthalmology 61 20 21 20 21 143 13
Orthopaedics 82 21 20 21 20 164 14
Pathology 41 10 10 11 10 82 15
Microbiology 21 10 11 10 10 62 16
PSM 20 10 10 11 10 61 17
Physical 10 00 00 00 00 10 Medicine  Rehabilitation 18
Anatomy 11 00 00 00 00 11 19
Physiology 00 10 00 00 00 10 20
Bio Chemistry 00 00 10 00 00 10 21
Pharmocology 00 00 00 10 00 10 114284912 4612 4712 4511 30175 B DIPLOMA I II III IV V VI D A 61 0 62 61 0 14 DCH
62 0 61 62 0 15 DPH 61 0 0 0 0 61 DGO 62 0 61 0 0 123 DMRD 62 0 0 0 0 62 Total 308 0 184 123 0 601 PG NO 498 Note The figures shown in bracket are the seats reserved for being filled up on all India basis in the year 1988
The facility for the specialities from serial No 18 to 21 ie Anatomy Physiology Bio Chemistry and Phannacology are available in all the five Medical Colleges in Rajasthan
But from the year 1988 the facility in these specialities will be provided by rotation
Now it has to be realized that the aggregate marks for all subjects put together is 2750
5 of these marks would work out to 1375 marls
In the result a candidate from the same College will have an advantage of 137 5 marks over candidates from other Colleges
In Medical courses where there is intense competition and candidates run neck to neck so often with a difference of a mark or two
a difference of 1375 marks by way of College wise institutional preference would virtually make a mockery of the merit criteria
A candidate say from Jaipur College who secures 1375 marks less than a candidate from Jodhpur Bikaner Udaipur or Ajmer will get admission in P Course at Jaipur in preference to the other more meritorious candidates merely because he passed the MBBS Examination at Jaipur even though all of them secured their marks at the identical competitive examination to all the Collages
It needs no argument that article 14 is seriously shattered
Statements filed by the parties in this Court further go to show that some disciplines are available only in particular Colleges and not in other Colleges
For instance 1 MD in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation is available only in SMS College
Jaipur
TB and CD  is not available in Ajmer Medical College
Skin and VD  is not available in Udaipur and Ajmer Colleges
Psychiatry  is available only in Jaipur and Bikaner Colleges and not in others 5
MD in Radio therapy  is available only in Jaipur and Bikaner and not in other Colleges
An analysis of the data reflected in the aforesaid statement and its impact on the fortunes of the students PG NO 499 aspiring for the Post Graduate courses reveal i that a student passing his final degree examination in MBBS from Jaipur would steal a march over the students passing from the remaining four Colleges for with 5 weightage a student from Jaipur would have a far better chance of securing admission in a post graduate course at Jaipur inasmuch as there are as many as 114 seats at the Jaipur Medical College as compared to the number of seats ranging between 45 and 49 in each of the remaining Medical Colleges regardless of the superior merits of students from other colleges
ii a student passing his final degree examination in MBBS from Jaipur aspiring for admission in PG course would have a far better chance of securing admission in the subject of his choice vis a vis students from all other Colleges inasmuch as in each subject the number of seats in the Jaipur College is much larger than in any of the remaining Colleges regardless of his superior merits
iii a candidate from any of the four Colleges other than Jaipur College would have practically no chance of securing admission in certain disciplines such as a Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation b Anatomy subject to rotation after 1988 c Radio therapy and d Pychiatry etc
regardless of his superior merits
iv A candidate with special aptitude for a particular discipline would not get admission in PG course in that discipline unless he belongs to Collage in which the particular discipline is available regardless of his superior merits
The merit position in relation to the students would also undergo a vast change as is revealed by the tabular statement reproduced hereunder PG NO 500 Sl
No Name Merit Position with 5 without 5 Institutional Institutional weightage weightage S1No
Name Merit Position 1
Dr Ashok Kumar GuPta 207 171 2
Dr Rajeev Ahuja 226 209 3
Dr Ashwani Kumar Singh 201 162 4
Dr Ishwar Das 177 131 5
Ratan Lal Tiwari 215 181 6
Dr Madhu Sanwal 97 45 The fortunes of the candidates would thus undergo a sea change
Those who are more meritorious having secured more aggregate marks than others would not get admission to PG courses anywhere in Rajasthan whereas those with lesser merits would get admission by reason of the 5 College wise preference
To take the case of the appellants they having secured aggregate marks of 1650 1638 1624 1617 and 1613 have not been able to secure admission in any discipline
As against this candidates have secured much less marks already secured admission in one or the other of the 5 Medical Colleges
In order to illustrate the point the tabular statements reproduced hereinbelow may be glanced at Medical College Aggregate marks of Discipline last candidate allotted Jodhpur 1548 MD Anaesthesia Udaipur 1626 MS Surgery Jaipur 1602 MD Anaesthesia Bikaner 1622 MD Microbiology Statement showing list of candidates less meritorious that the appellantswho have secured admission PG NO 501 College Aggregate marks Discipline allotted Jodhpur 1610 MD Medicine 1605 1601 Skin  VD 1606 1595 1590 1576 1577 1582 1570 1548 MS Surgery MS Orthopaedics M D 
Anaesthesia 1638 M  D 
Medicine 1637 1635 1626 MD In TB  CD 1629 1610 1604 Psychiatry Skin  VD MS Surgery 1620 M  S 
Orthopaedics 1617 163 1602 MD Anaesthesia What emerges from the above statements is that while one of the appellants who has secured 1650 marks in the common competitive examination has not been able to secure admission in PG Course in any College in Rajasthan a PG NO 502 candidate who secured about 100 marks less 1548 marks in the very same examination has been able to secure admission the rest of the appellants havr not been able to secure admission anywhere though they have demonstrably secured more marks and are more meritorious than The aforesaid 22 persons
This analysis exposes the extremely unfair and unjust impact of the impugned rule
This factor coupled with the four factors highlighted earlier leave no room for doubt that while on the face of it the impugned rule appears to extend or accord equal treatment of 5 weightage to the students of each of the five Medical Colleges in actual operation it bring about oppressive and obnoxious inequality
Once the veil of apparent equality is pierced
to the offensive reality 
Such being the position the constitutional validity of the impugned rule cannot be sustained
It has to be buried unceremoniously as unconstitutional being violate of article 14 of the Constitution of India
The High Court has struck down as unconstitutional the impugned provision embodied in note dii of Ordinance 278 E mainly on the ground that coupled with the institutional preference accorded under clause i it would virtually amount to making 100 reservation in farour of the students of the Rajasthan University in the sense that no other student of any other University would have any reasonable chance to secure admission to these courses
relying in the principle enunciated in Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar vs State of Maharashtra  Ors  3 SCR 1302 the reasoning is reflected in the following passage extracted from paragraph 25 of the judgment under appeal Thus after having given 5 weightage on the ground of institutional preference that a candidate has passed his final MBBS Examination from the University of Rajasthan further 5 weightage on the ground that he has passed his MBBS final examination from the Medical College where he seeks admission
in Post Graduate course is unreasonable able and arbitrary and does not stand the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution
If 0 weightage is given as aforesaid it will come to 275 marks and with this increase in marks no candidate from University other than University of Rajasthan can get admission to Post Graduate course in any one of the medical colleges
It is against the equality clause as it amounts to cent per cent reservation as 105 weightage in admission to Post Graduate course to a student 5 weightage on the University basis PG NO 503 and 5 on the institutional basis amounts to total exclusion of candidates of other Universities
We have already referred to the admissions for the years 1986 and 1987 and at the cost of repetition we may say that a look at Schedules A and B  regarding admissions in SMS Medical College Jaipur in Post Graduate courses for the years 1986 and 1987 respectively will show that not a single candidate from the University other than University of Rajasthan could seek admission  Since however a number of seats are now since l988 reserved in each College for candidates on an All India basis as disclosed by the tabular statements reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment
we prefer to rest our decision on the reasoning indicated earlier
These are the reasons which impelled us to pass the final order as under on July 21 1988 ORDER I The appeals fail and are dismissed
II Ordinance 278 Edii of the Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan is declared as unconstitutional and quashed
III Admissions to the Post Graduate Degree Courses in all the Medical Colleges at all centres in Rajasthan shall hereafter be made inaccordance with the decision of the High Court rendered on August 7 1987 in the Writ Petitions giving rise to the present appeals which is hereby confirmed
IV Future vacancies including unfilled vacancies to the Post Graduate Degree Courses in all the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan shall hereafter be filled on the basis that Ordinance 278 Edii is invalid provided however that those students who have been admitted to Post Graduate PG NO 504 courses pursuant to the interim order of this Court will not be disturbed and will be permitted to complete their courses
Unfilled vacancies may be filled in accordance with and in the light of this order even at this juncture if it can be so done
VII Reasons will follow
VII There will be no order as to costs
 RSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent had acquired the building being premises No 11249 Chikkadpalli Hyderabad constructed two storeys over this building and utilised the upper floors for his residence and the ground floor for his business
Subsequently he had purchased the adjacent building being premises No 1 1 250
The appellant was a tenant in the suit premises No 11250 even before the respondent purchased it and was running his shop in the front room and residing in the rear portion
The respondent sought eviction of the appellant inter alia on the ground of requirement of additional space under section 103r of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Iease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960 under which 
landlord occupying only a part of a building was entitled to seek the eviction of a tenant occupying another portion or the remaining portion of the building if the landlord required additional accommodation for residential purpose or for carrying on his business
The Rent Controller held that the respondent was not entitled to an order of eviction under section 103c because the leased premises was a separate building and did not form part of the building in which the respondent was carrying on his business
The Appellate Authority however held that even though the leased premises had a separate municipal door number it could be treated as forming part of the building in the respondent s occupation because both  the buildings were owned by the respondent and were separated only by a single wall
PG NO 433 PG NO 434 The High Court in revision held that if the respondent wanted the premises bona fide as an additional accommodation it did not matter whether it was a separate building or a portion of the same building
Before this Court the appellant contended that section 103c would not apply to a case where the landlord and the tenant were occupying different buildings even though the two buildings were owned by the same landlord
The respondent on the other hand contended that the two buildings could not be treated as independent and separate buildings because both the buildings were owned by the respondent and were separated only by a single wall
Allowing the appeal it was HELD I From a reading of clause c of section 103 it is obvious that provision has been made under that clause only to seek the eviction of a tenant occupying another portion or the remaining portion of the building in which the landlord is also residing or carrying on his business in one portion
437F 2 What section 113c envisages is the oneness of the building and not the oneness of ownership of two different buildings one occupied by the landlord and the other by the tenant
438G H 3 The significant words used in section 103c are the landlord who is occupying only a part of a building and any tenant occupying the whole or an portion of the remaining part of the building 438H 439A 4 A practical test which can be applied o find out if two adjoining buildings form part of the same building or two different buildings would be to see whether one of the two buildings can be sold by the landlord and the purchaser inducted into possession of the premises sold without the landlord s possession and enjoyment of the premises in his occupation being affected
439B C 5 The identity of two separate building is not to be judged on the basis of the buildings being separated by a single wall or by two separate walls with intervening space in between them
439E 6 There is no room or scope for the respondent to invoke section 2iii defining the word building to contend that two different premises should be treated as a single and integrated building for the purposes of the Act if the two buildings adjoin each other and are owned by the PG NO 435 same person but under different occupation ie one by the landlord and the other by the tenant
440C D 7 If the hardship experienced by landlords similar to the respondent is to be alleviated then it is for the legislature to remedy the situation by making suitable amendments to the Act and it is not for the Court to read section 103c beyond its terms oblivious to the limitations contained therein and hold that a separate tenanted building adjoining the building in the owner s occupation would also form part of the latter building
44lA B Balaiah vs Lachaiah AIR 1965 AP 435 Balaganesan Metals vs MN Shanmugham Chetty JT and N Ramaswamy Naidu vs P Venkateshwarlu Vol
Il 1961 1 AWR page 400 referred to