Amarnalh & Anr. v. THE BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD & Anr.

the Constitution and the Judgment and the 7th July, 1952, of the High Court of (Chagla C. J. and Gajendra in Civil Revision Application No. 567 petition Order stated Judicature at Bombay gadkar J.) of 1952. /. B. Dadachanji for the petitioner. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General A. Mehta, with them) for the respondents . India, and (Porus India

#1953. December 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs J. 1953 Baburao , Shantaram More . . ·v . The Bombay Hotising Board~ · · and Another. ·Das]. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 573 the camp and entrusted the use of the military. In 1948 DAs J.-The petitioner before us is the Government of India during In the same year the. respondent No. 4 in occupation of ·two rooms Nos. 387 and 388 in Barrack No. T-93 in Sion Dharavi Camp· in Greater Bombay. The camp tenements was constructed and consisting of several owned by the last world war for represented by the State Government of Bombay now · 0£ Bombay purchased management thereof to the Bombay Provincial Hous constituted by a Government ing Board-a Resolution. the Bombay Housing Board, (hereinafter referred to as the Board), was established by the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIX of 1948) as a body to acquire and hold property. corporate, competent The purposes of the Act included the management and use of lands and buildings belonging to or vested Board. The Board is authorised to frame and execute housing schemes._ Under section 3(3) the Board is to be deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of that (Bombay Amendment) Act and the Land Acquisition Act, 1948. Section 54 (3) provides that all assets en trusted to the Bombay Provincial Housing Board shall upon a declaration made by the Government of Bom in the Board. On 1st June, 1949, the Govern bay vest ment of Bombay having made the necessary declara tion the Sion Dharavi Camp vested in 'the Board. It appears ,that before the camp was made over to the Bombay Provincial Housing -Board certain persons including the petitioner had, without any authority or title, occupied portions ·of the camp. An arrangement the other persons the petitioner and was made who had gone into occuptation of portions of the camp would pay such rent as would be fixed by the Govern of Bombay to carry out certain repairs to the camp with undertook the object of reconditioning the same and tl1e petitioner and others also agreed to pay such rent as the Govern ment would then fix. The petitioner and others si uned the terms of the agreement. "'The a letter embodying petitioner's rent was originally fixed at Rs. 14 per month. The Government of Bombay then reconditioned of Bombay. The Government 1953 Baburao Shantaram More v. The Bombay Housing Board and Another. Das]. 574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] the structures at considerable cost and petitioner worked out at Rs. 56-8 per month. in respect of the rooms revised in the occupation of the revised In or about February, 1950, to quit. The petitioner not having agreed the Board the Board served a notice on the petitioner calling upon him to quit and the end of vacate in his occupation at intimation was also given by that March, 1950. An notice that if the petitioner agreed to pay the revised rent of Rs. 56-8 per month the Board would waive the notice took proceedings the Court of Small Causes at against the premises in his Bombay inter alia, occupation. The petitioner that he was protected by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act LVII of 1947) popularly called the Bombay Rent Act. The its premises were Board, however, contended exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent Act by virtue of section 4 of that Act which runs as follows:- the petitioner in to recover possession of the plea, "This Act shall not apply the Government to any relationship created by a grant from to any premises be the Government or a local authority or longing tenancy or apply as against other like taken on lease or Government in respect of premises it shall requisitioned respect of premises let to the Government or a local authority." in respect of premises lease or the Government ; taken on · The petitioner's rejoinder was local authority and could not, the Board was therefore, claim not a that section the benefit of section 4 and further was unconstitutional equal protection clause of the Constitution. During the pendency of the proceedings in the Court of Small Causes the Bombay Housing Board Act was amended by the Bombay Housing Board (Amendment) Act (Act XI of 1951). Section 3-A which was added by amending Act is in the word following :- it offended against 1953 Baburao Shantaram Mor6 v. The Bombay llousitzg Board and Another. DasJ. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 575 "3-A. For the removal is hereby of doubt, the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging declared House Rates Control Act, 1947,- ( a) shall not apply nor shall be deemed to have to any land or building belonging to or the purposes of this s_ver applied vesting in the Board under or for Act; (b) shall not apply nor shall be deemed to have the Board to any tenancies or respect ever applied as against other like relationship created by the Board in of such land or building ; ( c) but shall apply to any land or building let to the Board." The issued until the warrant two rooms to trial court held the Board was a local the meaning of section 4 of the Bom authority within bay Rent Act and that that section did not contravene the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution and ac cordingly on the 14th February, 1952, passed an order for delivery of possession of the Board but directed that for possession should not the 15th May, 1952. The petitioner moved the High Court in revision. The High Court found that it was difficult to hold that the Board was a local authority but held that section 3-A duced by the amending Act had retrospectively ex tended in section 4 of the the Board. The High Court Bombay Rent Act further held that right under article 14 and petitioner's dismissed for revision. The petitioner applied. to the Bombay High Court for leave to appeal to this court but that application was rejected. The peti tioner has now applied before us for special the order of the High Court. He has appeal against also made a subs tan ti ve application under article 32 rights. Both these applications have been posted together before us for hearing and disposal. the exemption contained there had been no infraction of fundamental the application enforcement of his fundamental The on! y point urged before us by the petitioner learned counsel that the said section appearing for • 7 1 953 Babura• Shantaram More v. The Bombay Bowing Board and Another. Das]. 576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] result indicate exempts that while protected by its memebrs. There from the operation of to solve housing problem but that any of the members of any of incorporated under is nothing in lands or buildings belonging 3-A which to or vested in the Board the equal protec Bombay Rent Act offends against tion · clause of the Constitution. He points out that there are in Bombay numerous Co-operative Housing incorporated under the Co-operative Societies Societies Act which are similarly situated and whose object lands and buildings are not exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent 'Act. The tenants of those Co-operative Housing Societies are the Bombay Rent Act against tenants of enhancement of rent and ejectment, the Board are, by virtue of section 3-A, denied the Bombay Rent Act. The Co-opera protection of in terms bring about any tive Societies Act does not tenants between a Co relationship of landlord and operative Housing Society Act and that Act Co-operative Housing Societies lease or other document has been pro society. No the Co suggestion operative Housing Societies have any tenant at all. Further, - though these Co-operative Housing Societies are no doubt they nevertheless may earn profits which may be distributed amongst their members. The Board, on incorporated body brought purpose of framing housing schemes to solve the pro shortage of accommodation in Bombay. blem of acute There are no shareholders the distribu the control of the tion of any profit. It Government and acts under the orders of the Govern ment. it is a Government sponsored body not having any profit making motive. No material has been placed before us which may even remotely suggesting, much the Co-operative Housing Societies or their members stand similarly tenants. The sustain his complaint of discrimination on this ground. the Board and cannot situated petlt10ner, incorporated bodies, into existence for the other hand, is a tenant of in support of less proving, regarded as In effect, interested is under therefore, vis-a-vi"S • ' 1953 -=.:::... Bahurao Shantaram Mor1 v. The Bombay Housing Board and Another. Da;J. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 577 It is tenants and tenants and the petitioner the Government differentia has a to be achieved by tenants are denied Learned counsel for the Government, in Bombay. There can be no question to the object sought the business of then said the effect of section 3-A is to extend the benefit of the Bombay Rent Act exemption of section 4 of implies that in other words, the Board which, in section 4 after name of the Board has been added that section 4 the local authority. The contention tenants of properties belong discriminates against local authority or the Board ing to the benefits of the Bombay Rent Act which are available to all other tenants this exemption is given by section 4 to certain classes is based on an <lf this classification them from intelligible differentia which distinguishes rational <lther relation to solve Act. the public the accommodation problem and of housing accommodation. the Board was purpose of achieving It is not to be expected incorporated and established. the Government or local atuhority or the Board would be. actuated by any profit making motive tenants as to unduly enhance the rents or eject landlords private from their respective properties the tenants of to be. Therefore, are or are likely the Board are not Government or local authority or tenants of private in need of such protection as is a cogent basis landlords are and this circumstances for differentiation. The two classes of tenants arn not by force of circumstances placed on an equal footing and the tenants of the Government or local authority therefore, complain of any cannot, law or of equal protection denial of equality before real discrimination, is here no for the two classes are not similarly situated. Neither section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act nor section 3-A of the Bombay Housing Board Act can, therefore, be challenged as unconstitutional on the ground of con travention of article 14 of the Constitution. satisfy It was law. There the Board this object No other point has been urged before us. 1953 Baburao Shantaram More v. The Bombay Housing Board and Another. 1953 Dec. 18 578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] We dismiss both the applications. The pet1t10ner must pay one set of costs of the application under article 32. Petitions dismissed. Agent for the petitioner : Rajinder Narain. Agent for the respondents : G. H. Rajadhyaksha. DUNICHAND HAKIM AND OTHERS v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (DEPUTY CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY) KARNAL, STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS. [PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., s. R. DAS, VIVIAN BosE, GHuLAM HASAN and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.J Administration of Evacuee Property Act (Act XXXl of 1905), ss. property-Allotment-Cancellation 2, of-Jurisdiction of Deputy Custodian-Notice for cancellation, whe tlier essential-Orders of cancellation of allotment-Validity of. 56(2)-Evacuee 12, Held, that jurisdiction to Punjab Evacuees' as well as under XXX! of 1950), ss. 2(a) 12(1) and 56(2), placing the former Act. the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property has cancel the allotment of land both under the East (Administration of Property) Act, XIV of 1947 the Administration of Evacuee Property (Act latter Act That no notice was provided for cancellation of an allotment under the rules framed under section 56. the petitioners-allottees That notice and had their allotments were cancelled. full opportunity in the present case were given their case before to put forward ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: PETITION No. 324 of 1953 under article 32 of the Constitution. , N. S. Bindra, ( Gurucharan Singh Bakshi, with him) the petitioners. Porus A. Mehta for respondent No. 1. Amar Nath Arora for respondents Nos. 2 to 14. 1953. December 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GJ-IULAM HASAN J.-This twenty per sons under article 32 of the Constitution prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition petition by