Case: S. P. Jinadathappa Vs. R. P. Sharma And Others

letting it thereafter to him for the purpose of a boarding house. He later gave a notice as required by S. 3(2)(a) of the act to respondent No. 2, the Controller, who had the authority under S. 3(3)(a) 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 individual carrying on business of a boarding house keeper. Respondent No. 2 selected respondent No. 1 as the 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.3. 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 S. 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 S. 17 of the Act but the High Court refused to interfere. Before the District Judge and the High Court the petitioner had 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.

Reasoning:
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 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.If the Act had left it to the house owner to choose a tenant, then there was every likehood 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 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.9. Neither do we think that any objection to this provision can be based on Art. 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 Art. 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.