No 71 of 1958
23 Writ Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights
section K Venkataranga Ayengar and section J section Fernandez for the petitioner
B R L Iyengar for respondent No 1
R Gopalakrishnan and T M Sen for the respondent No 2 1961
April 17
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J
This petition under article 32 of the Constitution raises a question of the constitutional validity of section 33a of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act 1951 Mysore XXX of 1951
Shortly put that provision enables an authority set up by the Act to select any Government local authority public institution officer of a government local authority or public institution or any other person as the tenant of a vacant house
Under the Act the owner is bound to let the premises to the tenant so selected
The petitioner for whom a tenant had been selected under this provision challenges its validity on the ground that it puts an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental right to property under article 191f of the Constitution and is outside the protection of el
5 of that article
The petitioner had a building in respect of which he had made some sort of arrangement with one Misri Lal for the making of certain alterations in it and for letting it thereafter to him for the purpose of a boarding house
He later gave a notice as required by section 32a of the Act to respondent No 2 the Controller who had the authority under section 33a to select a tenant that the house had become vacant
Thereupon respondent No 2 considered applications for the tenancy of the house of which there were two
One was from Misri Lal mentioned above and the other was from respondent No 1 who was a private indivi dual carrying on business of a boarding house keeper
Respondent No 2 selected respondent No 1 as the 24 person to whom the house should be let by the petitioner
He fixed the rent at Rs 350 per month which was the rent demanded by the petitioner
There does not appear to have been any specification of the terms of the tenancy and no question as to such terms arises in this case
The petitioner was dissatisfied with this decision as he wanted that the premises should be let to Misri Lal and appealed to the District Judge under section 15 of the Act
The District Judge affirmed the decision of respondent No 2
The petitioner then went up in revision to the High Court under section 17 of the Act but the High Court refused to interfere
Before the District Judge and the High Court the petitioner bad contended that Misri Lal was a more suitable tenant than respondent No 1
But such contention was rejected
Having failed in the High Court he has now challenged the Act itself by the present petition
The only question is whether section 33a imposes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner s right to property
The validity of no other part of the Act has been challenged in this petition
The provision challenged is in these words section 33a
On receipt of the intimation under sub section 2 the Controller shall taking into consideration any representation made by the landlord and after making such inquiry as he considers necessary select the State Government or the Central Government or the Government of any other State in India or any local authority or any educational or other public institution or any officer of any Government authority or institution aforesaid or any other person hereinafter referred to as the allotted to be inducted as a tenant in the house and direct the landlord by a written order hereinafter referred to as the allotment order  to let the house to such allotted at such rent as shall be specified in the allotment order and to deliver possession of the house to the allotted on such date as shall be specified in the said order Provided that before making an allotment order in favour of any authority or person other than 25 the State Government the Central Government or the Government of any State in India or a local authority the Controller shall consider any representation of the landlord about the suitability of the proposed tenant and shall not allot the house to any person who in the opinion of the Controller is an unsuitable tenant The petitioner does not contend that the provision in so far as it allows the Controller to select as a tenant a Government local authority public institution or any of the officers mentioned imposes any unreasonable restriction on the right to property
As we understood learned counsel for the petitioner it was conceded that selection of such tenant would constitute a public purpose and the restriction thereby imposed would be reasonable
It would therefore appear that it is not contended that the selection of a tenant by the Controller would by itself amount to imposing an unreasonable restriction on the right to property
We do not think that such a contention if made would have been well founded
It is clear that the Act deals with houses which are vacant
It does not deprive an owner of his right to live in his own house
It provides for vacant houses not needed for the use of the owner being made available for the use of others who are without accommodation
The Act was necessary because of the scarcity of housing
It was therefore passed to regulate the letting of houses and to control rent and also to prevent unreasonable eviction see the preamble to the Act
Does the Act then by leaving it to the Controller to select any person other than a Government local authority public institution or an officer of any of these as the tenant impose an unreasonable restriction on the right to property We do not think it does so
If the Controller could validly choose a Government a local authority or any institution which as we have said is not disputed it can make no difference that instead of such a tenant the Controller chooses a private individual as a tenant
The idea of this provision is that people in need should be 4 26 found accommodation
Persons in need of accommodation are the public and therefore serving their need would be serving a public purpose
An individual would be a member of the public and as the accommodation available can be let out to one a restriction caused by selection of a member of the public would be one in the interest of the general public
Such a restriction is furthermore not unreasonable
It is enforced only when the owner does not want the house for his own use
It can then make no reasonable difference to the owner if a private individual is chosen as the tenant
The Act further makes ample provision to see that the tenant chosen is suitable
By providing the appeal to the District Judge and a right to move the High Court in revision full safeguard has been given to secure that an unsuitable person is not foisted on an owner as his tenant
It is true that the Act does not define who would be a suitable person but we do not think that a definition was required
Any man of experience would know who is a suitable tenant
Further the owner has been given the right to have the suitability of the tenant chosen examined by the highest court
In the explanation to section 33a certain persons have been declared to be unsuitable tenants
We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the result of this explanation is that all others are suitable
The explanation only shows that the persons coming within the description are unsuitable
As to whether others would be suitable or not would have to be decided on the merits of each
Thedecision as to the suitability of a tenant is not to be controlled by the explanation at all except to the extent of making certain persons unsuitable as tenants and taking it out of the discretion of the authority concerned to go into the question of their suitability If the Act had left it to the house owner to choose a tenant then there was every likelihood of its purpose being defeated
It would be easy for the owner to make secret arrangements for his own gain in creating a tenancy
The tenant would obviously be 27 in a disadvantageous situation in view of the scarcity of housing in the matter of bargaining for the house
He could easily be made to yield to the terms imposed by the owner who has a much superior bargaining situation
If scope was left for this kind of thing to happen then the entire object of the Act would have been defeated
The Act intends to avoid this situation and hence the provision for a power in the Controller to select a tenant for the owner
Neither do we think that any objection to this pro
vision can be based on article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that it provided no guidance as to how a tenant is to be chosen and so enabled the authority concerned to make an arbitrary choice
This contention is not in any event open to the petitioner an owner for the provision does not enable any discrimination being made between one owner and another
If a tenant had challenged the validity of the provision relying on article 14 which is not the case here we do not think that challenge would have been of substance
There is in our view ample guidance given to the authority as to how to choose a tenant
The tenant has first to be suitable
All persons are entitled to apply for being selected as tenants and so all have equal chance to get the house
The choice will have to be made from amongst the applicants and that choice will depend on an examination of the comparative merits of their claims
Further the owner has a right to have his views in the matter being given due consideration by the authority selecting the tenant
Again the ultimate decision would be a judicial decision and if required of the highest tribunal in the State
We therefore think that the challenge to the Act is ill founded
In the result we dismiss this petition
The petitioner will pay the costs of the appearing respondent
Petition dismissed


Summary:
Section 303a of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act 1951 authorised the Controller to select any Government local authority public institution officer of a government local authority or public institution or any other person as a tenant of a vacant house
Under the Act the owner was bound to let the house to the tenant so selected
The petitioner was the owner of a house for whom the controller selected a tenant under these provisions
He challenged the constitutionality of section 33a in so far as the selection of other persons was authorised on the grounds that i it put an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental right to property and ii it offended article 14 of the Constitution as it provided no guidance for choosing the tenant and enabled the controller to make an arbitrary choice
Held that section 33a of the Act was valid and did not violate article 14 or 191f of the Constitution
An individual was a member of the public and the restriction caused by his selection was in the interest of the general public
The restriction was not unreasonable
It was enforced only when the owner did not want the house for his own use
It could make no reasonable difference to him whether an individual was selected or government local authority public institution or any officer of any of these was selected
The Act made provision for selection of a suitable tenant
This was further secured by providing for an appeal to the District judge and thereafter a revision petition to the High Court
There was ample guidance given in the Act to the Controller to choose a suitable tenant
Every one had been given a right to apply for being selected as a tenant and the owner bad been given the right to have his views also considered
The ultimate decision was a judicial decision and if required of the highest tribunal in the State