vil Appeal Nos
4043 and 1370 of 1987
221 From the Judgment and Order dated 20111987 and 431987 of the Jammu  Kashmir High Court in LPA No 201987 and in Suit No 23586
K Parasaran Ms section Janani and Ms Urmila Kapur for the Appellant in CA No 404387
P Chidambaram PH Parekh and Ms Gitanjali Mathrani for the Appellants in CA No 137087
M Beg EC Agarwala Atul Sharma Vijay Pandita and Ms Purnima for the Respondents in CA No 404387
EC Agarwala and Atul Sharma for the Respondents in CA No 137087
Ashok Mathur for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Advocate General
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMMEN J
Civil Appeal No 4043 of 1987
The question which arises in this appeal is as regards the validity of clause iii of sub section 3 of Section 1 of the Jammu  Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act 1966 hereinafter referred to as the Act
The challenge against the clause on the ground of its alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution was rejected by the High Court of Jammu  Kashmir
The High Court following its earlier decision in The J  K Bank Ltd vs State of J  K  Another AIR 1987 J  K 18 upheld the validity of the clause
The impugned provision as it stood at the relevant time reads 13 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section 2 nothing in this Act shall apply to ii Omitted iii any tenancy in respect of any house
or shop where the income of the tenant whether accruing within or outside 222 the State exceeds rupees 40000 per annum Explanation the word income  means net income  The appellant the Delhi Cloth  General Mills Limited is the tenant of the building in question
Its claim for the protection of the Act was disallowed by the courts below on the ground that clause iii of sub section 3 of Section 1 read with the Explanation was attracted in respect of the appellant
According to the appellant the impugned clause is discriminatory and arbitrary because it draws an artificial distinction between tenants on the basis of their income
Those tenants earning net income below Rs40000 per annum are fortunate enough to be protected by the beneficial provisions of the Act while a person like the appellant whose annual net income is undoubtedly in excess of the statutory limit of Rs40000 is unreasonably and unfairly denied the protection of the Act
This statutory discrimina tion it is contended places persons like the appellant at the mercy of the landlords who can easily evict them by recourse to the far less restrictive provisions of the and on the strength of their agreements of lease
Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned clause does not take into account the nature of the build ing but only the income of the tenant
The income of the landlord himself is irrelevant
The protection of the Act is withheld or extended dependent solely on the financial capacity of the tenant and without regard to the need of the landlord or the age or other conditions of the building or any other factor
Treating tenants differently with refer ence to their annual income is not an intelligible classifi cation for the income of a tenant may vary from year to year depending upon the nature of his business and other factors
This variation in income may expose him to eviction in a particular year when the business is prosperous but protects him from eviction when the business declines and income falls
Furthermore counsel says
income is not a clear and precise concept
Limiting it to net income does not make it clearer
What are the permissible deductions to arrive at the net the Act does not say
The Section is invalid because it is too broad or vague
Any classification based on such vague differentia is unintelligible and therefore violative of Article 14
In any view counsel submits the classification sought to be made between per sons falling on either side of the 223 specified income has no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute
Counsel relies on the observation of this Court in Rattan Arya  Others vs State of Tamil Nadu  Another  declaring Section 30ii of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1960 as unconstitutional
Counsel also relies upon the decision of this Court in Motor General Traders  Another vs State of Andhra Pradesh  Others  declaring Section 32b of the AP Buildings Lease Rent and Evic tion Control Act 1960 as unconstitutional
These decisions in our view are easily distinguisha ble
In Rattan Arya supra this Court stated that a dis tinction between residential buildings leased on rent not exceeding Rs400 per month and all other buildings whether residential or non residential was an unreasonable classi fication
There was no reason why non residential buildings leased on rent of Rs400 per month or less should be treated differently from residential buildings of like rent or why in the case of residential buildings the limit should have been limited to Rs400 per month
To so restrict the protec tion of the Act was an unreasonable classification
In the Motor General Traders supra this Court stated that to arbitrarily prescribe a cut off date ie August 26 1957 for denying the protection of the Act without regard to the age of the building or to the extent of realisation of the investment by the owner was an unreasonable classification
These decisions do not in our view support the contentions of the appellant
On the other hand a classification with reference to economic realities was upheld by this Court in Kerala Hotel  Restaurant Association  Ors
vs State of Kerala  Ors 1990 1 JT SC 324
This Court stated those who can afford the costlier cooked food being more affluent would find the burden lighter
This object cannot be faulted on princi ple and is indeed laudable
Though that principle was stated in a different context significantly this Court accepted a classification based on financial capacity
The classic and oft repeated test to be applied when the constitutionality of legislation is questioned with refer ence to Article 14 of the Constitution is what is stated by this Court in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice SR Tendolkar  Others SR Das CJ
stated In order however to pass the test of permissible classi fication two conditions must be fulfilled namely i that the 224 classification must be rounded on an intelligible differen tia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and ii that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question
 The object of the enactment in question is undoubtedly to protect the weaker section of tenants from
unreasonable eviction and unfair rent
The legislature at the same time did not desire to discourage persons from constructing buildings
The twin legislative object is the protection of economically weaker tenants and encouragement of construc tion of buildings
While protection is thus afforded to deserving tenants construction of new buildings is encour aged by exempting buildings occupied by richer classes of tenants from the provisions of the Act
While a building is covered by the Act when occupied by a tenant whose annual net income is less than the specified amount the protection is withheld when the same building is occupied by a richer tenant whose annual net income is higher than the specified amount
Where a building is occupied by more than one ten ant the applicability of the Act to each of them would depend upon his net income
It is the tenant that the legis lature intends to protect and not the landlord or his build ing
The test adopted by the legislature for this purpose is with reference to the tenant s net income whether accruing inside or outside the State as on the date of the land lord s application for eviction as well as on the date of the decree for eviction
The legislative object is there fore to protect tenants who are economically weaker in comparison to those affluent tenants falling outside the specified limit of income and at the same time to encourage construction of new buildings which will result in better availability of accommodation employment opportunity and economic prosperity
This is a reasonable classification which does not suffer from the vice of being too vague or broad
Classification based on income is well known to law
Such classification has a reasonable relation to the twin legislative object mentioned above
We see nothing unreason able or irrational or unworkable or vague or unfair or unjust in the classification adopted by the impugned provi sion
Nor is there lack of clarity in the concept of income or net income
Income is money or other benefit periodi cally received
It is profit or revenue and not capital
It is a gain derived from capital or labour or both
Net income is income obtained after deducting all expenses incurred for the purpose of earning the income
It is income minus oper ating expenses
The concept of net income is what it is 225 ordinarily understood to be in common parlance and not necessarily limited by the technicalities of any fiscal enactment
See in this connection the observation of the Jammu  Kashmir High Court in Banarasi Das vs Jagdish Raj Kohli AIR 1960 J  K 5
The legislature in its wisdom is presumed to understand and appreciate correctly the problems of the State and the needs of the people made manifest by experience
Absent blatant disregard of constitutional provisions legislative innovation by social and economic experimentation must be permitted to continue without judicial interference
The High Court as stated earlier followed its earlier decision on the construction of the Section in The J  K Bank Ltd vs State of J  K  Another AIR 1987 J  K 18
In that case speaking for the Division Bench Anand CJ
stated as follows In our opinion the challenge to vires of section 13iii of the Act is not well founded
Undoubtedly the Act is a piece of social and beneficial legislation
The Legislature knows and correctly appreciates the needs of its people
In its supreme wisdom it denied the protection of the Act to ten ants whose annual income exceeds Rs40000
Social legisla tion of this type is designed to protect the interest of a class of society who because of their economic conditions deserves such protection against their arbitrary eviction
The legislation is intended to protect weaker and poorer classes of the tenants and there is therefore an intelli gible differentia between the tenants whose annual income is Rs40000 and those whose annual income is more than Rs40000
In construing article 14 the aid whereof has been pressed into service by the learned counsel the Court is not required to adopt a doctrinaire approach which would choke the beneficial legislation
It is open to the legisla ture to recognise the degree of harm and while doing so it can always make reasonable classification
Article 14 for bids class legislation but no reasonable classification
With a view to pass the test of reasonable classification there must exist intelligible differentia between persons or things grouped together from those who have been left out and there must be a reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved by the legislation
Keeping in view the object which the legislation seeks to achieve it can be safely said that there is reason 226 able nexus between the classification made by the legisla ture in the impugned section and the object sought to be achieved
We also find that there is an intelligible differ entia between the tenants who are sought to be protected by the Act from those who are denied the protection of the Act
We are in complete agreement with what has been stated by the learned Chief Justice
Accordingly we see no merit in this appeal
It is dismissed with costs here and in the courts below
Civil Appeal No 1370 of 1987
This appeal is brought by a nationalised bank
In view of our judgment in Civil Appeal No 4043 of 1987  we dis miss this appeal with costs here and in the High Court
NPV Appeals dis missed


Summary:
The appellants were convicted for offence under Ss 147 149 and 302 IPC for murdering a villager
The prosecution case was that motivated by group rivalry the accused persons numbering over fifteen attacked the deceased with tabbals and lathis while he accompanied by his mother PW 1 and sister PW 5 was on his way to a nearby village to supply milk
As a result of the injuries sustained the deceased died on the spot
When PW 1 tried to intervene site too was assaulted
She lodged the FIR thereafter the same day against the appellants others
At the trial PW 4 and PW 6 deposed to having seen appel lants Baran Bhagau Karan and Parsadi armed with lathis and tabbals hurriedly going towards the place of occurrence ahead of the deceased at a short distance
The medical evidence disclosed that the deceased had sustained in all seven injuries two incised wounds on the scalp two contu sions and three bruises
The trial court found that the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly and death of the deceased was caused by them in prosecution of a common object
The High Court on appeal agreed with the findings of the trial court
In the appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellants that the courts below had failed to exercise the necessary care and caution that was required in scrutinising the evidence of the two eye witnesses who were close rela tions of the deceased and deeply interested in involving the appellants on account of enmity and that in the absence of independent corroboration the conviction based on the testi mony of these witnesses was unwarranted
Disposing of the appeal the Court 102 HELD 11 It is an accepted proposition that in the case of group rivalries and enmities there is a general tendency to involve as many persons of the opposite faction as possi ble by merely naming them as having participated in the assault
The court therefore has in all such cases to sift the evidence with utmost care and caution and convict only those persons against whom the prosecution witnesses can be safely relied upon without raising any element of doubt
107C D Baldev Singh vs State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 464 Raghu bir Singh vs State of UP AIR 1971 SC 2156 and Muthu Naicker vs State of Tamil Nadu  referred to
12 The conviction of the appellants was principally based on the evidence of PW 1 and PW 5 the mother and sister of the deceased
Though their evidence was not to be discarded as interested necessary caution should have been observed in accepting the same in upholding the conviction of all the appellants
104H 105A 21 In a melee as in the instant case where several people are giving blows at one and the same time it will be impossible to particularize the blows
If any witness at tempts to do it his veracity is doubtful
But it is sim pler to make an omnibus statement that all the accused assaulted with their weapons because that obviates close crossexamination
Therefore the nature of injuries sus tained by the victim assumes importance
105H 106A 22 PWs 1 and 5 stated that the accused persons sur rounded the victim and each one of them assaulted him with the weapon they had
PW 1 stated that some of the assailants had given more than one blow They did not state who caused the head injuries
They have not attempted to attribute any one of the injuries to any particular assailant
The evi dence was in general terms
If a group of more than fifteen persons had encircled the victim and simultaneously attacked him with tabbals and lathis without any resistance or any intervention there would have been certainly corresponding injuries of the concerted attack on the person of the vic tim
The medical evidence shows that besides the two incised wounds on the scalp which proved fatal the deceased had only five minor injuries on his person
105E G 23 When the several blows with lathis and tabbals could produce only seven injuries on the person of the deceased the necessary inference would be that not more than seven persons might have participated in delivering the blows
therefore the presence of more than seven 103 persons is doubtful
This aspect of the case has not been given due weight by the High Court while appreciating the evidence
105H 106A C 31 The manner in which the incident happened also makes it clear that the assailants acted in prosecution of the common object to cause the death of the victim
There is no doubt that more than five persons had actually participated in the crime
There is clear evidence regarding the identity of only four persons
Appellants Baran Karan Bhagau and Parsadi had been located by PW 4 and PW 6 two independent witnesses in the locality just before the incident
This evidence lends assurance to the testimony of PW 1 and PW 5 regarding their participation in the crime
107B C  32 The conviction of these four persons has therefore been rightly sustained
Regarding the rest of the appellants there is scope of genuine doubt
Their conviction and sen tence are accordingly set aside
107D