Civil Appeal No 1637 of 1987
From the Judgement and order dated 331986 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No 1055 of 1986
SK Bagga and Mrs SK Bagga for the Appellant
RS Suri for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana dated the 3rd March 1986 dismissing the Writ Petition in limine under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant before the High Court
The appellant states that he is the owner of certain premises in Punjab
It must however be mentioned that the petition is lacking in particulars as to what premises the appellant owned and in respect of which premises the appellant is making the grievances
On this ground it is not possible to decide the question of vires canvassed before the High Court and repeated before us
A petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions must be in the context of certain facts and not in abstract or vacuum
The essential facts necessary to examine the validity of the Act are lacking in this appeal
On this ground the petition was rightly rejected and we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court on this ground alone
Be that as it may as the question of vires of Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 hereinafter called the Act  was challenged before the High Court and canvassed before us
It is just as well that we did with that connection
Shri SK Bagga learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 4 of the said Act is ultra vires the Constitution and unreasonable inasmuch as the section provides that rent prevalent in 1938 the basis for the determination of fair rent if unreasonable and unjust
He urged that pegging the rent prevalent in 1938 the basic rent was inequitable and unjust in the background of the tremendous rise in prices
But it has to be borne in mind that certain increases have been provided for in section 4 from the rent prevalent in 1938
In must however be remembered that the Act was passed as the preamble of the said Act which states inter alia to restrict the 110 increase of rent
One of the objects of the Act was to restrict the increase in rent
With that object the Act has provided certain provisions as to fixation of the fair rent
Section 4 of the Act which is under challenge may be conveniently set out as under Section 4 Determination of fair rent 1 The Controller shall on application by the tenant or landlord of a building or rented land fix the fair rent for such building or rented land after holding such enquiry as the Controller thinks fit
2 In determining the fair rent under this section the Controller shall first fix a basic rent taking into consideration a The prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve months prior to 1st January 1939 and b the rental value of such building or rented land if entered in property tax assessment register of the municipal town or notified area committee cantonment board as the case may be relating to the period mentioned in clause a Provided that not with standing anything contained in sub sections 3 4 and 5 the fair rent for any building in the Urban area of Simla shall not exceed the basic rent
3 In fixing the fair rent of a residential building the Controller may allow if the basic rent i in the case of a building in existence before the Ist January 1939 a does not exceed Rs25 per mensem an increase not exceeding 81 xab per cent on basic rent b exceed Rs25 per mensem an increase but does not exceed RS50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 12 12 per cent on such basic rent c exceeds RS50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 25 per cent on such basic rent 111 ii in the case of building constructed on or after the Ist January 1939 a does not exceed Rs25 per mensem an increase not exceeding 25 per cent on such basic rent b exceeds Rs25 but does not exceed Rs50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 37 12 per cent on such basic rent c exceed Rs50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 50 per cent on such basic rent 4 in fixing the fair rent of a scheduled building the controller may allow if the basic rent i in the case of a building in existence before the Ist January 1939 ii does not exceed Rs25 per mensem an increase not exceeding 13 12 per cent on such basic rent b exceeds Rs25 but does not exceed Rs50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 17 xab per cent on such basic rent c exceed Rs50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 303 percent on such basic rent ii in the case of a building constructing on or after the Ist January 1939 a does not exceed Rs25 per mensem an increase not exceeding 30 percent on such basic rent b exceeds Rs25 but does not exceed Rs50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 42 xab per cent on such basic rent cexceeds Rs50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 55 per cent on such basic rent 112 5 In fixing fair rent of a non residential building or rented land the controller may allow if the basic rent i in the case of building in existence before the Ist January 1939 or in the case of rented land a does not exceed Rs50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 3712 per cent on such basic rent b exceeds Rs50 per mensem an increase not exceeding SO per cent on such basic rent ii in case of building constructed after the Ist January 1939 a does not exceed Rs50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 50 per cent on such basic rent b exceeds Rs 50 per mensem an increase not exceeding 100 per cent on such basic rent 6 Nothing in this section shall be deemed to entitle the Controller to fix the rent of a building or rented land at an amount less than the rent payable for such building or rented land under a subsisting lease entered into before the first day of the January 1939
 It was contended that Section 4 of the Act provides the manner for determining the fair rent
But while laying down the procedure for determining the fair rent it has laid down that the Rent Controller while determining the fair rent under this section shall take into consideration the prevalent rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during 12 months prior to Ist January 1939
In other words he has first to determine the rent prevalent in the locality in the year 1938 and then fix the rent accordingly
This it is submitted was unreasonable and as such arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and would be an interference with the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 191g of the Constitution
There has been according to the appellant a tremendous rise in prices and as such in pegging the rent at the rate of Act of 1938 in an Act of 1949 was unreasonable
He drew our attention to the relevant provisions of the Rent Act in Assam Tripura and Haryana where the provisions of fixation of rent 113 according to him were different and were more fair and just and reasonable in comparison and submitted that this provision of the Act in question was unfair and unjust
We are unable to accept this contention because each legislature in the several States has provided the method of determination of fair rent on the basis of legal conditions as judged to be by each such legislature
It is well settled that the legislative wisdom of such legislation is not a ground for which the validity of the Act can be challenged 
Article 14 does not authorise the striking down of a law of one State on the ground that in contrast with a law of another State on the same subject its provisions are discriminatory or different
Nor does it contemplate a law of the Centre or of the State dealing with similar subjects being held to be unconstitutional by a process of comparative study of the provisions of two enactments
The source of authority for the two statutes being different Article 14 can have no application
See in this connection the decision of this Court in Prabhakaran Nair and others vs State of Tamil Nadu and others  Shri SK Bagga learned counsel drew our attention we must have hasten to add to the different statutes in different States on this aspect
We cannot say that there was any better provision in those statutes there were undoubtedly different provisions and those different provisions were judged by the legislatures of those State to be suited to the needs of those States
It is not necessary for us to examine in details those very provisions
Shri SK Bagga learned counsel also drew out attention to the observations of this Court in the case of Ms Raval  Co vs KG Ramachandran and others AIR 1974 SC 818 1197412 SCR 629
He drew out attention how fair rent should be fixed by relying on the certain observations of Bhagwati J as the Chief Justice then was at Page No 825 of the AIR
In the facts and in the context of this case it is not necessary to refer to these observations
These were made entirely in a different context
It must be the function of the legislature of each State to follow the methods considered to be suited for that State that would be no ground for judging the arbitrariness or unreasonableness of a particular legislation in question by compari 114 son
What may be the problem in Madras may not be the problem inPunjab
It must however be borne in mind that the Act in question was passed in 1949 and it pegged the rent prevalent in the similar houses in 1938 and as such is not unreasonable per se
The rises stated tremendously after the end of the Second World War after the partition of the country
In that view of the matter we can not say that per se there is unreasonableness in fixing the prices in 1938 level
Having regard to the specific preamble of the Act we find nothing unreasonable in the Scheme contemplated under Section 4 of the present Act
In the aforesaid view of the matter the challenge to Section 4 on the grounds advanced before us must fail and it is accordingly rejected
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
NPV Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 The respondent s brother was carrying on his business in the front portion of the ground floor of the premises in question which belonged to the father of the respondent
The appellant purchased the said running business from the brother of the respondent
After purchasing the business the appellant became a tenant under the father of the respondent
In the rear portion of the ground floor of the premises one Mrs Janaki Ammal was residing as a tenant
Mrs Janaki Ammal vacated the said residential portion and the appellant took that portion also on rent from the father of the respondent
The ownership of the premises in question was transferred in favour of the respondent by his father
On 961982 an agreement was entered into in respect of both the portions specifying that the lease should remain in force till 851983
After the expiry of the said period the respondent instituted a petition for eviction of the appellant in the Court of the Controller under section 103aiii of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1960 on the ground that the premises in question were needed by his wife for carrying on her business which she was carrying on somewhere else
The appellant contended inter alia that the requirement of the wife of the respondent was not bona fide
The Controller dismissed the petition holding that the tenancy in question was in respect of both the residential and non residential portions and the respondents could not seek eviction of the appellant as the major portion of the demised premises was of residential character
Aggrieved by the decision of the Controller the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal
The respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court
The High Court allowed the revision petition holding that it was not necessary for the respondent to establish that his requirement was bona fide as the question of the bona fides of a landlord s requirement did not 385 arise in a case under section 10 3aiii of the Act
It however held the claim of the respondent to be bona fide
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellant filed this appeal before this Court for relief by special leave
Allowing the appeal the Court  HELD The crucial question which arose for consideration in this case was whether a landlord who sought eviction of a tenant from a non residential building other than a non residential building used for keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use under section 10 3aiii of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 1960 the Act was required to prove that he required the said building for his own use or for the use of any member of his family bona fide
390C D The Act was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to the regulation of the letting of residential and non residential buildings and the control of the rents of such buildings and the prevention of unreasonable eviction of the tenants therefrom in the State of Tamil Nadu
The Act is an ameliorating piece of legislation
Similar Acts are in force in almost all the States in India
The provision in question section 103aiii has to be examined against this background
390D392G Having regard to the pattern in which clause a of sub section 3 of section 10 of the Act is enacted and also the context the words if the landlord required it for his own use or for the use of any member of his family found in sub clause ii of section 10 3a of the Act have to be read also into sub clause iii of section 10 3a of the Act
Subclauses ii and iii both deal with the non residential buildings
They could have been enacted as one sub clause by adding a conjunction and  between the said two sub clauses in which event the clause would have read thus in case it is a non residential building which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use if the landlord required it for his own use or for the use of any member of his family and if he or any member of his family is not occupying any such building in the city town or village concerned which is his own and in case it is any other non residential building if the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on a non residential building in the city town or village concerned which is his own  If the two sub clauses are not so read it would lead to an absurd result
The non residential building referred to in sub clause ii is a building used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use and all other non 386 residential buildings fall under sub clause iii
The State legislature cannot be attributed with the intention that it required a more stringent proof by insisting upon proof of bona fides of his requirement or need also when a landlord is seeking eviction of a tenant from a garage than in the case of a non residential building occupied by a large commercial house for carrying on business
It is no doubt true that the Court while construing a provision should not easily read into it words not expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the Court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful
398C H 399A In the present case by insisting on the proof of the bona fide of the requirement of the landlord the Court is not doing any violence to the statute nor embarking upon any legislative action
The Court is only construing the words of the statute in a reasonable way having regard to the context
399E By merely proving that the premises in question is a non residential building and that the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for the purpose of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on any residential building in the citytown or village concerned which is his own the landlord cannot in the context in which section 10 3aiii appears get a tenant evicted
He must show in view of clause e of section 10 3 that his claim is bona fide
The word claim  means a demand for something as due or to seek or ask for on the ground of right etc
In the context of the Rent Control Law which is enacted for the purpose of giving protection to the tenants against unreasonable evictions and for the purpose of making equitable distribution of buildings amongst persons who are in need of them in order to prove that his claim is bona fide a landlord should establish that he deserves to be put in possession of the premises which is in the occupation of a tenant
Any decision on the question whether a landlord deserves to be put in possession of a premises in the occupation of a tenant should naturally depend upon the bona fides of the landlord s requirement or need
The word claim  in clause e of section 103 of the Act should therefore be construed as the requirement  of the landlord or his deservedness
Since clause e of section 103 of the Act is also applicable to a petition filed under sub clause iii of section 103a of the Act it becomes necessary to examine whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide otherwise a landlord will be able to evict a tenant to satisfy his whim by merely proving the ingredients mentioned in section 103aiii of the Act
If the requirement of claim being bona fide as contained in section 103e is construed 387 to mean that genuineness of the need of the landlord for the non residential building is not to be considered and the circumstances that the landlord on the date of making the application is factually carrying on business and has no non residential building of his own in his occupation in the city town or village concerned is to be construed sufficient to make his claim bona fide the tenancy of no non residential building will be secure
It will be preposterous to attribute such an intention to the legislature
The need of the landlord should be genuine
The landlord should bona fide need the premises for his own use and occupation or for the occupation by any of the members of his family as held by this Court in Phiroze Bamanji Desai vs Chandra Kant M Patel and Ors  and Mattulal vs Radhe Lal  399F H 400A G The High Court was in error in this case in holding that the landlord need not prove that his requirement was bona fide but that his claim was bona fide as provided in clause e of section 103 of the Act
The High Court made a distinction between requirement  and claim  without there being a difference
400H 401A The Court was of the view that Ms Mahalakshmi Metal Industries vs K Suseeladevi  M Abdul Rahman vs section Sadasivam and A Khan Mohammed vs P Narayanan Nambiar  Ors 99 Law Weekly 965 relied upon by the respondent were wrongly decided and were liable to be over ruled
The Court overruled them
A landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from a non residential premises under section 103aiii of the Act should in order to succeed in his petition establish that he bona fide requires the premises in addition to proving the other ingredients referred to therein
The judgment of the High Court set aside
Since the High Court had approached the case from a wrong angle the Court directed the High Court to decide the case afresh in the light of what the Court had said in this appeal
Case remanded to the High Court to decide it afresh
If the High Court found that the case should be remanded to the Trial Court to enable any of the parties to lead evidence on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord it might remit the case to the Trial Court
401B D Mahalakshmi Metal Industries vs KSuseeladevi  M Abdul Rahman vs section Sadasivam  and A Khan Mohammed vs PNarayanan Nambiar and others 99 Law Weekly 965 overruled
388 Moti Ram vs Suraj Bhan and Others   Neta Ram vs Jiman Lal 1962 2 Supp
SCR 623 Nathala Sampathu Chetty vs Sha Vajingjee Bapulal 1967 1 Mad
LJ 289 Madras District Central Co operative Bank Limited Mylapore Branch Madras 4 vs A Venkatesh 99 Law Weekly 714 Ms Thilagaraj Match Works through its partner section Chidambaram vs C Sundresan 1985 1 Mad Law J 106 P Thanneer Malai Chettiar vs SJ Dhanraj and another  Seaford Court Estates Ltd vs Asher at 164 M Pentiah and Ors
vs Muddala Veeramallappa and Ors at 314 Bangalore Water Supply  Sewerage Board etc
vs R Rajappa Chandrakant M Patel  Ors 1974 3 SCR267 and Mattulal vs Radhe Lal 1975 1 SCR127referred to