SHANKAR RAO Vs. GOVT. OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment dated 23 -1 -1985 of our learned brother P. Rama Rao J. in Writ Petition No. 7279 of 1984. The notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, respondent No. 1 herein through G.O. Ms. No. 636 General Administration (Accommodation -A) Department dated 29th December, 1983 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Andhra Pradesh Act XV of 1960) - 'the Act' for short -, is challenged in this appeal in so far as that notification exempted from the operation of the provisions of the Act buildings the monthly rent of which exceeds Rs. 1000/ -. Our learned brother has dealt at considerable length the origin of the Rent Control legislation and the judicial pronouncements bearing thereupon. It is not, therefore, necessary for us to traverse the entire ground over again. We shall refer only to matters that are relevant for the purpose of determining the question whether the above provision contained in the notification exempting buildings the monthly rent of which exceeds Rs. 1000/ - from the operation of the provisions of the Act is constitutionally valid. The Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Regulation of Leasing of Buildings, the Control of Rent thereof and the Prevention of Unreasonable Eviction of Tenants therefrom in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 32 of the Act declared the Act to be not applicable to certain buildings. It may be usefully extracted below;

(2.) AFTER the above pronouncement of the Supreme Court the Government issued the notification dated 29 -12 -1983 exercising its power under Sec. 26 of the Act. It is relevant to quote the relevant portion of the notification:

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader, Sri Ramakrishna, supporting the notification pointed out that the basic object of classifying the buildings with reference to the monthly rent is specified in the notification itself, it is said that protection under the Act is considered necessary only to tenants belonging to those income groups who cannot afford to pay rent of more than Rs. 1000/ - per month and the Government felt that the interests of such tenants constituting large majority of the society should be protected from exploitation by the landlords and from unreasonable eviction from the houses. It is further submitted that the Government did not consider it necessary to protect tenants who are affluent in the society capable of paying rent of more than Rs. 1000/ - per month and consequently the classification adopted for the purpose of notification serves a social purpose and is not open to attack under Article 14 of the Constitution.