SHANKAR RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash clause (b) of the notification in G.O.Ms.No. 636, General Administration (Accommodation-A), dated 29-12-1983 and declare that the said clause is constitutionally invalid.

(2.) The essential averments in the affidavit in support of the petition may be stated. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises called 'Haridwar Hotel' since 1970. The rent stipulated originally was Rs. 575/- permonth including the mulgis and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,550/ per month by 1979 and again by 1982 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2,500/- per month. The premises were constructed in the year 1969. The actual rateable value per year as entered in the municipal records is Rs. 4,800/- in the year 1983. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court striking down Section 32 (b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, the premises under the occupation of the petitioner is governed by the Rent Control Act. But however in view of clause (b) of G.O.Ms.No. 636, date 29-12-1983, the provisions of the Rent Control Act apply (sic) to the building. The landlord filed a suit O.S.No, 104/84 on file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. G.O.Ms. No. 636, date 29-12-1983 is issued under Section 26 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act as a consequence of striking down Section 32 (b) of the Act as un-constitutional by the Supreme Court. Clause (b) exempts the buildings, the monthly rent of which exceeds Rs. 1,000/- from the operation of the provisions of the Act. Clause (b) does not state the time at which or the date from which the amount of Rs. 1,000/- should be applied. The classification of the buildings on the basis of rental value is unreasonable and all tenants irrespective of the quantum of rent require protection under the Act. The notification is contrary to the object of the Act. Clause (b) of the notification is vague, discriminatory and arbitrary.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, it it stated that the notification was issued by the Government under Section 26 of the Act as a result of striking down Section 32 (b) of the Act by the the Supreme Court. It is considered that protection to tenants beloning to middle class is necessary and as such the buildings with a rent above Rs. 1,000/- per month have been excluded from the provisions of the Act. In the present day social conditions, protection is required only to the tenants who are poor and downtrodden keeping in view of the conditions in the city and main municipalities. The notification is not vague and does not defeat the object of the Act.