GANPATDAS RAMDAS Vs. SHARDAR SHANKARAO CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the Respondents and the learned Advocate General for the state of Maharashtra.

(2.) THE petitioners being the original tenants, aggrieved by a decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court as well ss the order of confirmation passed by the lower appellate Court, have filed these petitions. In addition to the challenge on merits with regard to the aforesaid two judgments by the trial court as well as the lower appellate Court, there is also a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 13 (1) (hhh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as "the said Act". In view of the constitutional challenge to the aforesaid section 13 (1) (hhh), these petitions have been placed before the Division Bench, otherwise the same would have been placed before the learned single Judge. Since the constitutional validity of section 13 (1) (hhh) of the said act is involved, the learned Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra has also appeared before us to assist us on this issue.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that under section 13 (1) (h) of the said Act, which provides that whenever reasonably and bonafide the landlord requires certain premises for carrying out repairs and also under section 13 (1) (hh) of the said Act when the landlord requires certain premises reasonably and bonafide for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting new building on the premises sought to be demolished, the landlord is entitled to file a suit against the tenants. In such cases, the landlord has to provide an equivalent accommodation in the newly constructed premises as per the provisions of section 17, 17a, 17b and 17c of the said act. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that such a protection to protect the interest of the tenants by way of an alternate accommodation is not provided under Section 13 (1) (hhh) wherein the premises are required for the immediate purpose of demolition ordered by any local authority or other competent authority, that is to say, if the premises of the landlord are to be demolished by an order of local authority or competent authority there is no protection for the tenants, whereas in case of demolition under section 13 (1) (h) or under Section 13 (1) (hh) the tenants interests are protected. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners strongly contended that the provision of section 13 (1) (hhh) is constitutionally ultra-vires inasmuch as the same is discriminatory in the sense section 13 (1) (h) as well as section 13 (1) (hh) provides protection to the tenants whereas section 13 (1) (hhh) does not provide any such protection. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 13 (1) (hhh) is discriminatory and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in this behalf brought to our notice the judgment of this Court reported in 1973 Maharashtra Law Journal 225- Krishna laxman Yadav V/s. Narsinghrao Vithalrao Sonawane. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the final view expressed by the Division Bench of this court in the aforesaid judgment in Para 11 to the effect that the tenants would be entitled to specific performance of their rights in respect of the construction that will be put up. it was also pointed out that the petitioners would be in such a case entitled to occupy the tenements of equal proportion and at about the same place as in the original house. This judgment does not deal with the basic issue raised in this petition, viz, the constitutional validity of section 13 (1) (hhh) of the said Act, vis a vis Section 13 (1) (h) and Section 13 (1) (hh) of the said Act. Hence the above judgment is of no assistance to the petitioners.