PATEL ROADWAYS PVT LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two writ petitions are identical in nature and have been filed by the same petitioner. They relate to the tenancy rights of the petitioner in a non-residential building which is owned in equal moieties by two minors who are arrayed as the second respondent respectively in each of the petitions. The petitioner has filed the petitions praying for the issue of a writ of declaration to nullify S.10(3)(a)(iii) and S.10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended in 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that they are unconstitutional.

(2.) The circumstances under which the petitioner has come forward with these petitions are as under The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Its head office is in Bombay and it has 150 Branches spread over all the States of the Union of India. The Branch office in Madras is situated at Door No 173, Broadway, Madras 1. The building is owned by two minor girls, viz., S.MA. Zulaika and S M.A. Rahila represented by their father. In 1970, the petitioner took the building on lease for a period of ten years. The monthly rent for the half portion owned by each of the owners was fixed at Rs. 2,000/- per mensem. The petitioner has been using the premises as a godown and administrative office and, besides, the Regional Manager of the petitioner is also residing in a portion thereof. The petitioner would say that it owns 60 trucks and in addition, it hires a number of trucks in order to carry on its business as a transport organisation. It has a freight booking worth nearly Rs. 95 lakhs per annum and a local freight collection of nearly Rs. 50 lakhs. Goods worth about a crore of rupees of its customers are stored in the godown in the petition premises. About sixty staff members, nine watchmen and thirty-five labourers are engaged by the petitioner to run its office-cum-godown in the petition building.

(3.) The lease agreement executed in 1970 contains a clause for renewal of the lease for a further period of ten years subject to revised rates of rent to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. The petitioner exercised its option to renew the lease, but, as the parties could not reach an agreement on the quantum of rent, the owners of the building filed petitions before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent which, according to the petitioner, is nearly fifty per cent over the prevailing rent. In the meantime, the owners of the building filed two petitions for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that they required the premises for the purpose of a business they were carrying on. They also sought eviction of the petitioner on another ground, viz., that the petitioner had made use of the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. The Rent Controller dismissed the petitions, but on appeal by the owners, the Appellate Authority accepted their case and allowed the appeals and passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed civil revision petitions to this Court and they are pending disposal. 3A. During the pendency of the civil revision petitions, the petitioner claims to have discovered constitutional flaws in certain provisions of the Act, and consequently, he wants the impugned provisions in the Act to be declared as null and void. Towards that objective, the petitioner claims to have filed an earlier petition challenging the constitutional validity of S.4 (fixation of fair rent) of the Act. In these petitions the petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of S.10(3)(a)(iii) and S.10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act.