RAM KRISHAN GROVER & Ors. v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Judgment

17 S.C.R. 1 RAM KRISHAN GROVER AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 8597 of 2019) NOVEMBER 14, 2019 [RANJAN GOGOI CJI, NAGESWARA RAO AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: s.13-B – Notification dated 09.10.2009 by Central Government, extending Section 13-B and other related sections (inserted in the Rent Act vide East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001) to the Union Territory of Chandigarh – Provision of s. 13-B giving preferential right to claim eviction to non-resident Indian – Constitutional validity of s. 13-B – Held: Section 13-B is constitutional valid as also its extension and applicability to the Union Territory of Chandigarh – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 – Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 – s. 87. s. 13-B – Issuance of Notification dated 09.10.2009, u/s. 87 of the Re-organisation Act, extending Section 13-B in the Amendment Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by executive action – Validity of – Held: Extension of the Amendment Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh falls within the ambit of conditional delegation and is valid and permissible – Once a policy of extension of laws has been laid down by the Parliament and is clear and permissible, it would only seem as an inevitable fallout that the executive should be permitted to extend future amendments to the existing laws – Thus, the challenge predicated on the doctrine of excessive delegation, separation of powers, doctrine of the law of agency, cannot be accepted – Administrative law – Conditional delegation – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 – Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 – s. 87. 1 1 A B C D E F G H 2 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 17 S.C.R. s. 13-B – Amendments made vide the Amendment Act with regard to the rights of Non-Resident Indians by the State Legislature of Punjab – Legislative competence of the State – Held: Amendment Act enacted by the State legislature was well within its competence – Amendment Act on its true construction and by reference to the doctrine of “pith and substance” is relatable to the relationship of landlord and tenant for housing and accommodation and falls under the Concurrent List – Dominant intention or “pith and substance” of the legislation is to regulate the relationship between Non-Resident Indian landlords and tenants for housing and accommodation – Merely because the Amendment Act to achieve its object touches upon the subject matter in respect of Non-Resident Indian landlords in the Rent Act, does not make the Amendment or the Rent Act ultra vires the Constitution – In the context of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and as the subject matter falls within the Concurrent List, it would be immaterial to decide on the competence of the legislating body – Power to make laws in respect of a Union Territory vests with the Parliament under Art.246(4) – In terms of s. 87 of the Re-organisation Act, the power to extend laws to the Union Territory of Chandigarh vests with the Central Government, that is the Parliament or the Central Executive, as the case may be, and is permissible – Constitution of India – Art. 246(4) – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001 – Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 – s. 87. s. 13-B – Plea that s. 13-B creates a special class of NRI landlords, however, does not afford any legal remedy to the tenants – Reasonability of – Held: By providing for a simplified procedure of eviction by the Non-Resident Indians, s. 13-B does not dilute the rights of tenants – It gives a chance to the tenants on merits to establish their case and when justified and necessary to take the matter to trial – Thus, s. 13-B cannot be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. s. 13-B – s. 13-B classifying non-Resident Indian landlords as a separate category – Validity of Section 13-B – Held: Section 13-B cannot be treated as an arbitrary classification that infringes and violates Article 14 – It cannot be held to be unconstitutional because it grants a right to claim eviction for bona fide need by summary procedure to a certain group of landlords-Non-Resident RAM KRISHAN GROVER AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Indians subject to and on the satisfaction of statutory conditions which incorporate a check on frivolous evictions – It rests with the legislature to make laws and extend it to other similarly situated persons – Rent Act(s) invariably give similar rights by a controlled mechanism and alluded riders to various other classes/groups of landlords, namely, government servants, members of armed forces, the retired or soon to retire employees of the Central and the State Governments, widows, etc – Constitution of India – Art.14. s. 13-B – Restrictions and conditions imposed on landlord seeking eviction under – Purpose of – Held: In terms of Section 13-B, the condition imposed upon the landlord is that he should have been the owner of the premises for five years before the eviction petition is filed – Such landlord/owner is permitted to file an eviction petition only once during the lifetime and in respect of one building – Landlord cannot sell or give the premises on lease for a period of five years from the date of taking possession from the tenant – On breach of the same, the tenant has a right to seek restoration of possession – In case the landlord does not occupy the premises for a continuous period of three months after getting an eviction order or lets out the whole or any part of the premises to a third person other than the tenant in contravention of the provisions of s. 13 B(3), punishment is imposed-– Thus, these restrictions and conditions are strong in-built checks to ensure that the need of the landlord should be genuine and bona fide and the tenant should not be subjected to frivolous and dubious eviction order by relying on false assertions. s.18-A and s.13-B – Right of Non-Resident Indians to initiate eviction under the summary procedure – Nature of – Held: Is not an unfettered and absolute right – It is subject to satisfaction of various pre-requisites and imperatives that ensure and check potential abuse by resorting to a short-circuit procedure – Requirement should arise from a genuine need of the Non-Resident Indian landlord or his dependent – Furthermore, these pre-conditions and post possession restrictions stated therein suggest that s. 13-B serves a specific policy objective to ensure the right of Non-Resident Indians to occupy their property in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the State of Punjab as the case may be, after “returning” to their country – This right has to be balanced with the right of the tenants to establish their case on 3 A B C D E F G H 4 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 17 S.C.R. merits by disproving the genuine requirement of the Non-Resident Indians – Constitution of India – Art. 14. Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of Pith and substance – Meaning of – Held: Pith and substance doctrine states that if the legislation is covered by an entry, that is, it is within the permitted jurisdiction of the legislature, any incidental encroachment in the rival field has to be disregarded – Only when wide construction of an entry leads to heads-on-clash with another entry in the same or different List, the principle of harmonious construction is applied to reconcile the conflict and to give effect to each of them. Constitution of India: Art. 254 – Repugnancy – When attracted – Held: Repugnancy arises between a Central and a State Act when there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between the two enactments and in that case, the Central Legislation prevails by virtue of Art. 254 – Such repugnancy or inconsistency is not to be readily inferred as the entries in the three Lists permit incidental encroachment – Thus, every attempt must be made to placate the conflict and only when and in case of oppugnant clash, the court should proceed to strike down the legislation as trespassing beyond its legitimate and legal confines. Legislature: Function of – Held: Primary function of the legislature is to make laws for all or different groups or classes of persons – Lawmakers as elected representatives are in a better position to know the needs, requirements and expectations of citizens – Thus, the legislature possesses the power to distinguish and classify persons or things subjected to such laws – Such a classification, however, must pass the muster of Art. 14 which proscribe hostile and invidious discrimination – Art. 14 does not entirely prohibit classification by grouping certain persons with special peculiarities in a special category to meet certain specific ends. Legislation: Rent control legislation – Object of – Stated. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The constitutional validity of Section 13-B of the Rent Act and its extension and applicability to the Union Territory of Chandigarh is upheld. [Para 46] [45-B] RAM KRISHAN GROVER AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Whether Notification dated 09.10.2009 issued under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 extending Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 to Chandigarh by executive action is invalid?

2.1 The extension of the Amendment Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh falls within the ambit of conditional delegation and is valid and permissible. [Para 18] [26-A]

2.2 It cannot be accepted that the Notification dated 09.10.2009 which extends the Amendment Act to Chandigarh by an executive action in exercise of powers under Section 87 of the Re-organisation Act amounts to and suffers from the vice of excessive delegation as it amends the rent legislation in force in Chandigarh, that is, the Extension Act were enacted by the Parliament in exercise of powers under Article 246(4) of the Constitution. Once a policy of extension of laws has been laid down by the Parliament and is clear and permissible, it would only seem as an inevitable fallout that the executive should be permitted to extend future amendments to the existing laws. Therefore, the challenge predicated on the doctrine of excessive delegation, separation of powers, doctrine of the law of agency, fails and must be rejected. Such challenge must also be rejected in view of the large number of eviction suits filed by Non- Resident Indian landlords on the strength of Notification dated 09.10.2009 who would be left remediless if contentions to the contrary are accepted. [Paras 15, 19] [20-A-B; 26-B-C] Ramesh Birch v. Union of India (1989 Supp) 1 SCC 430 : [1989] 2 SCR 629 – relied on.