STATE OF M P Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated September 22, 1964 the only question canvassed at the Bar was, whether the notification under Section 3(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was discriminatory and as such rightly quashed by the High Court.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows: Respondent No.4 is a public trust registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act. It holds a house property in the town of Bhopal. One portion there of was occupied by a girls school, the rest being let out to tenants.

(3.) It was urged before the High Court that Section 3(2) of the Act was void on the ground of the excessive delegation of legislative powers to the State Government : secondly, the said provision conferred unguided and arbitrary powers on the executive, and lastly, the notification was bad because it was discriminatory. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in P. J. Irani, v. The State of Madras (1). The statutory provision which came up for consideration there was Section 13 of the Madras. Building; (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 which bears a close resemblance to the Madhya Pradesh Act. In that case one Chetty had obtained a lease of a cinema house which was to expire in May 1942. The property was in charge of receivers appointed by the High Court in a litigation between the owners of the cinema house. Irani had offered to take a lease of the cinema house for 21 years in the year 1940. The High Court offered Chetty the option of taking a lease for the said period but Chetty was not willing to take it for a period longer than seven years ending in May 1947. The High Court ordered that a lease be given to Chetty for a period up to May 1947 and that another lease be given to Irani from 1947 to 1961. The receivers executed two leases one in favour of Chetty and the other in favour of Irani. Before the lease in favour of Chetty expired, the Madras (Lease and Rent Control ) Act, 1946 came into force protecting tenants in possession from eviction even after the expiry of their leases. Section 13 of the Act empowered the State Government to exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of the Act. On the application of Irani. Government passed an order on June 4, 1952 exempting the cinema house from the provisions of the Act. The reasons given by the Government for making the order were (1) that Chetty had deliberately offered to take the lease for seven years only when the High Court was willing to give it to him for 21 years (2) Chetty had several other businesses besides the lease of the cinema; and (3) he had been in possession for five years more than he was legiti mately entitled to be there. Chetty filed a writ petition before the High Court for quashing the order on the ground of unConstitutionally of Section 13. The High Court did not accept his contention but held that the order of the Government was ultra vires Irani appealed to this Court challenging the validity of Section 13 also. A Bench of five Judges of this Court were unanimous in their opinion that Section 13 did not violate Article 14 and was not unConstitutional. The majority of Judges however held that the order passed under Section 13 was ultra vires as the grounds given by the Government in support of the grant of exemption were not germane or relevant to the policy and purpose of the Act. It was further held that the fact that Chetty had taken the lease for seven years and continue in possession thereafter was not a ground for eviction inasmuch as the policy of the Madras Act was to protect such possession; nor was the fact that Chetty had other business material on this question. It was held that the Government had failed to consider the question whether on Chetty being evicted he could secure alternative accommodation where he could carry on business of the type he was carrying on in the premises which was the subject of the lease. This decision was followed in Sadhu Singh v. Th District Board, Gurdaspur and Anr. (2).