PETITIONER:
BABURAO SHANTARAM MORE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD ANDANOTHER.,
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
18/12/1953
BENCH:
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
BENCH:
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
SASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)
BOSE, VIVIAN
HASAN, GHULAM
JAGANNADHADAS, B.
CITATION:
1954 AIR 153 1954 SCR 572
CITATOR INFO :
R 1967 SC1581 (8,19,21)
MV 1974 SC2009 (3,23)
D 1985 SC 270 (6,10)
E&F 1989 SC1642 (15)
ACT:
Constitution of India, art. 14-Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodg-
ing House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947), s. 4-
Bombay Housing Board (Amendment) Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951)
inserting new s. 3-A in Bombay Housing Board Act (Act LXIX
of 1948) -Whether ultra vires the Constitution.
HEADNOTE:
Held, that neither s. 4 of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging
House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947) nor the new
s 3-A inserted in Bombay Housing Board Act, (Act LXIX of
1948@ by the Amending Act (Bombay Act XI of 1951) is ultra
vires art. 14 of the Constitution.
The facts and arguments are sufficiently stated in the
Judgment.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION PETITION No. 271 of 1952 Petition for
special leave to appeal No. 108 of 1952.
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution and petition
for special leave against the Judgment and Order stated the
7th July, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
(Chagla C. J. and Gajendragadkar J.) in Civil Revision
Application No. 567 of 1952.
J. B. Dadachanji for the petitioner.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, and
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Porus
A. Mehta, with them) for the respondents.
1953. December 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered
by DAs J,
573
DAS J.-The petitioner before us is in occupation of two
rooms Nos. 387 and 388 in Barrack No. T-93 in Sion Dharavi
Camp in Greater Bombay. The camp Consisting of several
tenements was constructed and’ owned by the Government of
India during the last world war for the use of the military.
In 1948 the Government of Bombay now represented by the
State of Bombay purchased the camp and entrusted the
management thereof to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board–a
body constituted by a Government Resolution. In the same
year the Bombay Housing Board, the respondent No. 4
(hereinafter referred to as the Board), was established by
the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIX of 1948) as
a body corporate, competent to acquire and hold property.
The purposes of the Act included the management and use of
lands and buildings belonging to or vested in the Board.
The Board is authorised to frame and execute housing
schemes. Undersection3(3)the Board.is to be deemed to be a
local authority for the purposes of that Act and the Land
Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948. Section 54
(3)provides that all assets entrusted to the Bombay
Provincial Housing Board shall upon a declaration made by
the Government of Bombay vest in the Board. On 1st June,
1949 the Government of Bombay having made the necessary
declaration the Sion Dharavi Camp vested,-in the Board.
It appears that before the camp was made over to the Bombay
Provincial Housing Board certain persons including the
petitioner had’ without any authority or title, occupied
portions of the camp. An arrangement was made that the
petitioner and the other persons who had gone into
occupation of portions of the camp would pay such rent as
would be fixed by the Government of Bombay. The Government
of Bombay undertook to carry out certain repairs to the camp
with the object of reconditioning the same,and the
petitioner and others also agreed to pay such rent as the
Governt ment would then fix. The petitioner and others
signed a letter embodying the terms of the agreement. The
petitioner’s rent was originally fixed at Rs. 14 per month.
The Government Of Bombay then reconditioned
574
the structures at considerable cost and the revised rent in
respect of the rooms in the occupation of the ,petitioner
worked out at Rs. 56-8 per month.
In or about February, 1950, the Board served a notice on the
petitioner calling upon him to quit and vacate the rooms in
his occupation at the end of March, 1950. An intimation was
also given by that notice that if the petitioner agreed to
pay the revised, rent of Rs. 56-8 per month the Board would
waive the notice to quit. The petitioner not having agreed
to pay the revised rent the Board took proceedings against
the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay to
recover possession of the premises in his occupation. The
petitioner took the plea, inter alia, that he was protected
by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control
Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947) popularly called the Bombay
Rent Act. The Board, however, contended that its premises
were exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent Act by
virtue of section 4 of that Act which runs as follows:-
” This Act shall not apply to any premises belonging to the
Government or a local authority or apply as against the
Government to any tenancy or other like relationship created
by a grant from the Government in respect of premises taken
on lease or requisitioned by the Government; , but it shall
apply in respect of premises taken on lease or in respect of
premises let to the Government or a local authority.”
The petitioner’s rejoinder was that the Board was not a
local authority and could not, therefore, claim the benefit
of section 4 and further that that section was
unconstitutional in that it offended against the equal
protection clause of the Constitution. During the pendency
of the proceedings in the Court of Small Causes the Bombay
Housing Board Act was amended by the Bombay Housing Board
(Amendment) Act (Act XI of 1951). Section 3-A which was
added by the amending Act is in the words following:-
575
“3-A. For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that
the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act,
1947,-
(a)shall not apply nor shall be deemed to have ever applied
to any land or building belonging to or vesting in the Board
under or for the purposes of this Act;
(b)shall not apply nor shall be deemed to have ever applied
as against the Board to any tenancies or other like
relationship created by the Board in respect of such land or
building;
(c)but shall apply to any land or building let to the
Board.”
The trial court held that the Board was a local authority
within the meaning of section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act and
that that section did not contravene the provisions of
article 14 of the Constitution and accordingly on the 14th
February, 1952, passed an order for delivery of possession
of the two rooms to the Board but directed that the warrant
for possession should not be issued until the 15th May,
1952. The petitioner moved the High Court in revision. The
High Court found that it was difficult to hold that the
Board was a local authority but held that section 3-A
-introduced by the amending Act had retrospectively extended
the exemption contained in section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act
to the Board. The High Court further held that there had
been no infraction of the petitioner’s fundamental right
under article 14 and dismissed the application for revision.
The petitioner applied to the Bombay High Court for leave to
appeal to this court but that application was rejected. The
petitioner has now applied before us for special leave, to
appeal against the order of the High Court. He “has also
made a substantive application under article 32 for
enforcement of his fundamental rights. Both these
applications have been posted together before us for hearing
and disposal.
The only point-urged before us by learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that the said section
576
3-A which exempts lands or buildings belonging to or vested
in the Board from the operation of the ,Bombay Rent Act
offends against the equal protection clause of the
Constitution. He points out that there are in Bombay
numerous Co-operative Housing Societies incorporated under
the Co-operative Societies Act which are similarly situated
and whose object, is also to solve housing problem but their
lands and buildings are not exempted from the’ operation of
the Bombay Rent Act. The result is that while the tenants
of those Co-operative Housing Societies are fully protected
by the Bombay Rent Act against enhancement of rent and
ejectment, the tenants of the Board are, by virtue of
section 3-A, denied the protection of the Bombay Rent Act.
The Co-operative Societies Act does not in terms bring about
any relationship of landlord and tenant between a Co-
operative Housing Society incorporated under that Act and
its members. ‘there is nothing in that Act to indicate that
any of the members of any of the Co-operative Housing
Societies is a tenant of such society. No lease or other
document has been produced in support of the suggestion that
the Cooperative Housing Societies have any tenant at all.
Further, though these Co-operative Housing Societies are no
doubt incorporated bodies, they nevertheless may earn
profits which may be distributed amongst their members. The
Board, on the other hand, is an incorporated body brought
into existence for the purpose of framing housing schemes to
solve the problem of acute shortage of accommodation in
Bombay. There are no shareholders interested in the
distribution of any profit. It is under the control of the
Government and acts under the orders of the Government. In
effect, it is a Government sponsored body not having any
profit making motive. No material has been placed before us
which may even remotely be regarded as suggesting, much less
proving, that the Co-operative Housing Societies or their
‘members stand similarly situated vis-a-vis the Board and
its tenants. The petitioner, therefore, cannot sustain Os
complaint of discrimination on this ground. -
577
Learned counsel for the petitioner then said that the
effect of section 3-A is to extend the benefit of the
exemption of section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act to the Board
which, in other words, implies that the name of the Board
has been added in section 4 after the local authority. The
contention is that section 4 discriminates against the
tenants of properties belonging to the Government, local
authority or the Board in that these tenants are denied the
benefits of the Bombay Rent Act which are available to all
other tenants in Bombay. There can be no question that,
this exemption is given by section 4 to certain classes of
tenants and this classification is based on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes them from other tenants and
this differentia has a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the Act. It is the business of the
Government to solve the accommodation problem and satisfy
the public need of housing accommodation. It was for the
purpose of achieving this object that the Board was
incorporated and established. It is not to be expected that
the Government or local authority or the Board, would be
actuated by any profit making mot as to unduly enhance the
rents or eject the tenants from their respective properties
as private Ian are or are likely to be. Therefore, the
tenants Government or local authority or the Board are not
in need of such protection as the tenants of private
landlords are and this circumstance is a cogent basis for
differentiation. The two classes of tenants are not, by
force of circumstances placed on an equal footing and the
tenants of the Government or local authority or the Board
cannot, therefore, complain of any denial of equality before
the law or of equal protection of the law. There is here no
real discrimination, for the two classes are not similarly
situated. Neither section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act nor
section’s 3-A of the Bombay Housing Board Act can,
therefore, be challenged as unconstitutional on the ground
of contravention of article 14 of the Constitution.
No other point has been urged before us,
578
We dismiss both the applications. The petitioner must pay
one set of costs of the application under article 32.
Petition8 dismissed. Agent for the petitioner: Rajinder
Narain. Agent for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyaksha.