Case: Harbilas Rai Bansal Vs. The State Of Punjab &amp; Anr

rest of his life even when he bona fide requires the premises for his personal use and occupation. It is not tenants but the landlords who are suffering great hardships because of the amendment. A landlord may genuinely like to let out a shop till the time he bona fide needs the same. Visualise a case of a shopkeeper (owner) dying young. There may not be a member in the family to continue the business and the widow may not need the shop for quite some time. She may like to let out the shop till the time her children grow-up and need the premises for their personal use. It would be wholly arbitrary a situation like this - to deny her the right to evict the tenant. The amendment has created a situation where a tenant can continue in possession of a non-residential premises for life and even after the tenants death his heirs may continue the tenancy. We have no doubt in our mind that the objects, reasons and the scheme of the Act could not have envisaged the type of situation created by the amendment which is patently harsh and grossly unjust for the landlord of a non-residential premises. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that a tenant occupying non-residential premises and the one occupying residential premises belong to two different classes under the Act and as such no fault can be found with the amendment. Assuming that the classification exists, it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. Tenants of both kinds of buildings need equal and same protection of the beneficial provisions of the Act. Neither from the objects and reasons of the Act nor from the provisions of the Act it is possible to discern any basis for the classification created by the amendment. 14. This Court in Rattan Arya etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu , 1986(2) RCR 328(SC) : 1986(2) SCR 596 struck down Section 13(ii) of the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the distinction made by it between the tenant of a residential building and the tenant of a non-residential building based on the rent paid by the respective tenants had no reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 15. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and others, 1985(1) RCR 459(SC) : [1985(2) SCC 683] observed as under :- 39. Before concluding, there is one aspect on which we consider it desirable to make certain observations. The owner of any premises, whether residential or commercial, let out to any tenant, is permitted by the Rent Control Acts to seek eviction of the tenant only on the grounds specified in the Act, entitling the landlord to evict the tenant from the premises. The restrictions on the power of the landlords in the matter of recovery of possession of the premises let out by him to a tenant have been imposed for the benefit of the tenants. In spite of various restrictions put on the landlords right to recover possession of the premises from a tenant, the right of the landlord to recover possession of the premises from the tenant for the bonafide need of the premises by the landlord is recognised by the Act, in case of residential premises. A landlord may let out the premises under various circumstances. Usually a landlord lets out the premises when he does not need it for own use. Circumstances may change and a situation may arise when the landlord may require the premises let out by him for his own use. It is just and proper that when the landlord requires the premises bonafide for his own use and occupation , the landlord should be entitled to recover the possession of the premises which continues to be his property in spite of his letting out the same to a tenant. The Legislature in its wisdom did recognise this fact and the legislature has provided that bona fide requirement of the landlord for his own use will be a legitimate ground under the Act for the eviction of his tenant from any residential premises. This ground is, however, confined to residential premises and is not made available in case of commercial premises. A landlord who lets out commercial premises to a tenant under certain circumstances may need bona fide the premises for his own use under changed conditions on some future date should not in fairness be deprived of his right to recover the commercial premises. Bona fide need of the landlord will stand very much on the same footing in regard to either class of premises, residential or commercial. We, therefore, suggest that Legislature may consider the advisibility of making the bona fide rquirement of the landlord a ground of eviction in respect of commercial premises as well. 16. In Gian Devis case the question for consideration before the Constitution Bench was whether under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the statutory tenancy in respect of commercial premises was heritable or not. The Bench answered the question in the affirmative. The above quoted observations were made by the Bench keeping in view that hardship being caused to the landlords of commercial premises who cannot evict their tenants even on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use. The observations of the Constitution Bench ``bona fide need of the landlord will stand very much on the same footing in regard to either class of premises, residential or commercial fully support the view, we have taken, that the classification created by the amendment has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. We, therefore, hold that the provisions of the amendment, quoted in earlier part of the judgment, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and are liable to be struck-down.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]To be permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution a classification must satisfy two conditions namely (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes person or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute in question. The classification may be founded on different basis, but what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration11. The Scheme of the Act, unmistakably aims at regulating the conditions of tenancy, controlling the rents and preventing unreasonable and mala fide eviction of tenants of the residential and non-residential buildings. For the advancement of these objects, tenants are invested with certain rights and landlords are subjected to certain obligations. These rights and obligations are attached to the tenants and the landlords of all buildings, residential or non-residential. None of the main provisions of the Act, to which we have referred, make any serious distinction between residential and non-residential buildings12. The provisions of the Act, prior to the amendment, were uniformly applicable to the residential and non-residential buildings. The amendment, in the year 1956, created the impugned classification. The objects and reasons of the Act indicate that it was enacted with a view to restrict the increase of rents and to safeguard against the mala fide eviction of tenants. The Act, therefore, initially provided - confirming to its objects and reasons - bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord, whether residential or non-residential, as a ground of eviction of the tenant. The classification created by the amendment has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. To vacate a premises for the bona fide requirement of the landlord would not cause any hardships to the tenant. Statutory protection to a tenant cannot be extended to such an extent that the landlord is precluded from evicting the tenant for the rest of his life even when he bona fide requires the premises for his personal use and occupation. It is not tenants but the landlords who are suffering great hardships because of the amendment. A landlord may genuinely like to let out a shop till the time he bona fide needs the same. Visualise a case of a shopkeeper (owner) dying young. There may not be a member in the family to continue the business and the widow may not need the shop for quite some time. She may like to let out the shop till the time her children grow-up and need the premises for their personal use. It would be wholly arbitrary a situation like this - to deny her the right to evict the tenant. The amendment has created a situation where a tenant can continue in possession of a non-residential premises for life and even after the tenants death his heirs may continue the tenancy. We have no doubt in our mind that the objects, reasons and the scheme of the Act could not have envisaged the type of situation created by the amendment which is patently harsh and grossly unjust for the landlord of a non-residential premisesAssuming that the classification exists, it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. Tenants of both kinds of buildings need equal and same protection of the beneficial provisions of the Act. Neither from the objects and reasons of the Act nor from the provisions of the Act it is possible to discern any basis for the classification created by the amendment16. In Gian Devis case the question for consideration before the Constitution Bench was whether under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the statutory tenancy in respect of commercial premises was heritable or not. The Bench answered the question in the affirmative. The above quoted observations were made by the Bench keeping in view that hardship being caused to the landlords of commercial premises who cannot evict their tenants even on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use. The observations of the Constitution Bench ``bona fide need of the landlord will stand very much on the same footing in regard to either class of premises, residential or commercial fully support the view, we have taken, that the classification created by the amendment has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. We, therefore, hold that the provisions of the amendment, quoted in earlier part of the judgment, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and are liable to be struck-down.