J WILLIAM JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Original Petition praying for a declaration that sub-s. (3) of S.1 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) as null and void as it is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also that Act 2 of 1965 is enforceable throughout the State of Kerala even without a resolution of the local authority concerned. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the said Act throughout the State of Kerala with immediate effect.

(2.) For convenience, S.1 of Act 2 of 1965 is extracted hereunder:

(3.) According to the petitioner, the said Act was enacted with the object of giving protection to the weaker sections based on the concept of social justice and the Rent Control Act is a self contained Statute and the rights and liabilities of the landlord and the tenant are to be governed by its provisions and not by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or any other law. It is true that the Legislature made the above law with a laudable object. But while making the law the Legislature itself specified that the application of the provisions of the Act to areas other than those mentioned in the Schedule will depend on the decision of the local authority concerned. In other words, the Legislature wants the local authority to consider and recommend whether the ground realities in a particular area call for application of the provisions of the Act. Obviously, the Legislature felt that such a role should be assigned to the local authority concerned, presumably because, the local authority will be in a better position to understand and assess the ground realities and to decide whether the provisions of the Act should be applicable to the area concerned. It is possible that in view of the ground realities in a particular area, the application of the provisions of the Act may be unnecessary or it may create hardship to the persons who are likely to be affected by the application of the provisions of the Act. If the Legislature wanted to take the local authorities to confidence and to assign them a role in deciding whether the provisions of the Act should be made applicable to the area concerned, it is the legislative policy which cannot be called in question by this Court unless it is unconstitutional or illegal. We do not find anything unconstitutional or illegal in the impugned provision. In the age of de - centralisation of power and devolution of powers to local bodies, the above mentioned legislative policy is a step in the positive direction. In our view, the impugned provision does not violate any of the provisions of the Constitution of India or infringe the fundamental rights of any person including the petitioner.