SITYLAJA MANOHARLAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1963 the Government of Kerala issued a notification, in exercising of powers under S.25 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959 exempting buildings owned by the City Corporation of Calicut from all the provisions of the Act. The 1959 Act has since expired, and has been replaced by Act 2/65, but the aforesaid notification is still in force. And the main question in this writ petition is whether the notification is valid. It is the petitioner's contention that the notification is unconstitutional and void, and that the provisions of the 1965 Act should continue to apply to the arrangement under which she was allowed to occupy the 3rd floor of the "Jayanthi Buildings" belonging to the Corporation.

(2.) The petitioner was inducted into the building in 1975. There is some controversy as to whether the arrangement was a lease or a licence, but that question is being separately examined in other proceedings, and it is common ground that the same need not be examined herein. Upto 31-3-1979 the agreed monthly rent was Rs. 3750/-. For renewal of the arrangement from 1-4-1979, the Corporation wanted the rate of rent to be enhanced to Rs. 4125/- per mensem, and it appears that the petitioner had no objection to such enhancement. She continued to occupy the premises and carry on the business of running a lodging house in the name and style of "Manohar Rest House", till 34-3-81. With effect from 1-4-81 the Corporation wanted the rent to be further enhanced to Rs. 5775/-, and it is this demand which has led to the filing of the present writ petition (and other litigations between the parties).

(3.) The contention advanced in the present proceedings is this. The object of Rent Control legislation is to regulate letting of buildings, prevent rack-renting, impose severe restrictions on the landlords' power to evict building tenants. S.25 of Act 2/65 empowers the State Government to exempt any building or class of buildings from the provisions of the Act ''in the public interest and for any other sufficient cause". S.25 of the 1959 Act under which the notification impugned was issued also contained identical provisions. However, "Public interest" and "sufficient cause" have to be understood as grounds or reasons germane to the policy and purpose of the Act: that is, there should be some rational connection between the exemption granted and the three objects referred to earlier. To give a blanket exemption to buildings belonging to Municipal Corporations will be to permit the Corporation authorities to defeat all the three objects of rent control legislation, at their sweet will and pleasure. With the backing of the notification, the Corporation authorities can let out their buildings to whomsoever they like, demand unconscionable rates of rent from time to time, and drive out their tenants as and when it pleases them. Conferment of such an arbitrary power by means of an exemption is itself bad. A Municipal Corporation is a public statutory authority and it should not be allowed to function like every other greedy landlord. There is also no reason why local bodies like Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats should be placed in a more favourable position than private citizens in the matter of letting out their buildings, particularly when putting up buildings and letting them out are not their functions under the statute which govern their activities.