LAWS(SC)-1997-12-2

MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On December 19, 1997
Malpe Vishwanath Acharya And Ors. Appellant
V/S
State of Maharashtra And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lex injusta non est lex, unjust laws are not laws, is what is being contended by the landlords in their challenge in these appeals, and the connected writ petitions, to the validity of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act') in so far as it provides that landlords cannot charge rent in excess of the standard rent.

(2.) The appellants are landlords or their representatives of different premises in Bombay which have been given on rent to various tenants. They had filed in the High Court of Bombay writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(10)(B), Section 11(1) and Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, inter alia, on the ground that the said provisions pertaining to standard rent were ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently void. The main challenge to the said provisions was on the ground that the restriction on the right of the landlords to increase rents, which had been frozen as on 1st September 1940 or at the time of the first letting, was no longer a reasonable restriction and the said provisions had, with the passage of time, become arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and consequently ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that the object of the Bombay Rent Act was not to provide to the landlord an adequate return on its investment and it was not open to him to claim an increase in the rent by taking into account the increase in the land prices, etc. The Court also observed that the writ petitions lacked particulars in order to satisfy the Court that the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were unreasonable or arbitrary.

(3.) The Bombay Rent Act came into force on 13th February 1938. This Act was meant to be a temporary measure. The original act was enacted only for two years with a power to the Government to extend the same by notification in this behalf. This Act has been extended from time to time at least on twenty occasions and the present extension remains in force upto 31st March 1998. Sections 5(10), 7, 9(b) and 11(1)(a) which are being impugned in the present cases read as follows: