Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab
Supreme Court of India, 5 December 1995, 2 judges, 1996 AIR 857; 1996 SCC (1) 1; JT 1995 (8) 458
The 1956 amendment to the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which took away a landlord's right to evict a tenant of non-residential premises for bona fide personal need, violates Article 14 and was struck down.
Facts
Before 1956, Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 let a landlord seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide requirement for his own use. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Punjab Act 29 of 1956), in force from 24 September 1956, took that right away for non-residential buildings. The appellant had inherited a shop let by his father and, after retiring from government service, wished to use it to practise as a homeopath. His writ petition under Article 226 challenging the amendment was dismissed in limine by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and he appealed by special leave.
Questions before the Court
- Does the classification of buildings into residential and non-residential made by the 1956 amendment, for eviction on the ground of the landlord's bona fide requirement, have a reasonable nexus with the object of the Act?
- Is the amendment violative of Article 14?
What the Court held
- A classification under Article 14 must rest on an intelligible differentia with a rational relation to the object of the statute.
- The object of the Act was to restrict rent increases and protect tenants against mala fide eviction, and its scheme makes no serious distinction between residential and non-residential buildings. The classification created by the amendment has no nexus with that object.
- Denying a landlord of non-residential premises the right to evict for bona fide personal need lets a tenant, and even his heirs, stay indefinitely; this is patently harsh, grossly unjust and arbitrary.
- The impugned provisions of the amendment are violative of Article 14 and were declared invalid. The original provisions were restored, so a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground that he requires it for his own use.
Why it matters
The judgment strikes down a statutory classification between residential and non-residential tenancies for eviction on the ground of the landlord's own need, holding that bona fide need stands on the same footing for both. It applies the Article 14 nexus test to rent control law and, as a consequence of the declaration, restores the provisions that operated before the amendment. It draws support from observations of the Constitution Bench in Gian Devi Anand.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“The objects and reasons of the Act indicate that it was enacted with a view to restrict the increase of rents and to safeguard against the mala fide eviction of tenants. The Act, therefore, initially provided - conforming to its objects and reasons - bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord, whether residential or non-residential, as a ground of eviction of the tenant. The classification created by the amendment has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act.”
“Assuming that the classification exists, it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. Tenants of both kinds of buildings need equal and same protection of the beneficial provisions of the Act. Neither from the objects and reasons of the Act nor from the provisions of the Act it is possible to discern any basis for the classification created by the amendment.”
“We, therefore, hold that the provisions of the amendment, quoted in earlier part of the judgment, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and are liable to be struck-down. We allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, declare the above said provisions of the amendment as constitutionally invalid and as a consequence restore the original provisions of the Act which were operating before coming into force of the amendment.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 14, Constitution
- Section 13(3)(a)(ii), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
- Section 2, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Punjab Act 29 of 1956)
Related judgments
- Followed in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India (2008)
- Followed in Ashok Kumar v. Ved Prakash (2009)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Harbilas Rai Bansal v. The State of Punjab
- Case
- Not printed in the file (civil appeal by special leave from the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dismissing a writ petition in limine)
- Decided
- 5 December 1995
- Bench
- Kuldip Singh, Ahmad Saghir S.
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Kuldip Singh, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.