CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE constitutional validity of section 3 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been challenged in these writ petitions. This question which is common to all the writ petitions is the only question which arises for consideration and these writ petitions are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) SECTION 3 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, which is hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Act, lays down : section 3 (1 ). This Act shall not apply (a ). . . . . . . (b) to any premises let or sub-let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid up share capital of rupees one crore or more.

(3.) THE main contention of the petitioners is that the provisions of section 3 (1) (b) of the Act are ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. The argument is that this provision seeks to make an invidious distinction between companies having paid capital of Rs. 1 crore and other commercial ventures. It is urged that the classification of the companies on the basis of paid up share capital of a company is not a reasonable classification and that the same bears no nexus with the object of the legislation. In any event it would be discriminatory to single out only corporate tenants whilst other categories of tenants who are similarly situated like partnership firms, HUFs, and proprietory concerns continue to receive the protection of the Act.