Ram Krishan Grover v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 14 November 2019, 3 judges
Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, giving Non-Resident Indian landlords a summary right to recover possession, and its extension to Chandigarh by notification under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, are valid.
Facts
Tenants of residential and non-residential buildings in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and urban areas of Punjab challenged Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Inserted by a 2001 Punjab amendment, it lets a Non-Resident Indian owner who returns to India apply to the Controller for immediate possession of a let building needed for his or her own use or a dependant's, once in a lifetime and for one building, after five years of ownership. Section 18-A gives a summary procedure for such petitions, with leave to contest and no appeal, only High Court revision. The Central Government extended Section 13-B to Chandigarh by a notification dated 09.10.2009 under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The Court declined to interfere with the factual findings and decided only the legal issues.
Questions before the Court
- Is the notification dated 09.10.2009 extending Section 13-B to Chandigarh under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act invalid as excessive delegation?
- Was the Punjab Legislature competent to enact the 2001 Amendment Act, or does it fall under Entries 17 to 19 of List I and conflict with Central laws on non-residents?
- Is Section 13-B arbitrary and unreasonable because it leaves tenants without an adequate remedy?
- Does classifying Non-Resident Indian landlords as a separate category violate Article 14?
What the Court held
- Following Ramesh Birch v. Union of India, once Parliament has laid down a clear and permissible policy of extending laws, the executive may extend later amendments to Chandigarh under Section 87. The extension is conditional legislation, and the challenge on excessive delegation and separation of powers fails.
- In pith and substance the Amendment Act regulates the relationship of landlord and tenant for housing and accommodation, a Concurrent List subject. It does not fall under Entries 17 to 19 of List I and is not repugnant to Central laws on citizenship or non-residents' property, so the State Legislature was competent.
- Section 13-B is not arbitrary. The tenant may seek leave to contest on the grounds the landlord must prove, as stated in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini. A 'strong case' for leave means a reasonable, well-grounded defence, not proof beyond doubt, and the High Court's revisional power and Section 19(2-B) protect tenants.
- Non-Resident Indian landlords form a valid class with a rational nexus to the object of letting returning owners occupy their property. The statutory conditions check frivolous evictions, and the legislature need not extend the same right to all landlords. Section 13-B does not violate Article 14, and the tenants' appeals were dismissed.
Why it matters
The decision upholds a special eviction right for a class of landlords and explains how a Union Territory may receive later amendments to a State law by executive extension under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. It applies the pith and substance doctrine to place rent control for buildings in the Concurrent List, and it states that a 'strong case' for leave to defend under Section 18-A means a reasonable, well-grounded defence. It also accepts under-inclusive classification where the legislature has a fair reason.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In light of the aforesaid decisions and for the same reasons as stated in Ramesh Birch (supra), we would reject the first contention raised by the appellants. 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.”
“The 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. The 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.”
“By providing for a simplified procedure of eviction by the Non-Resident Indians, Section 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. By no means, therefore, Section 13-B can be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable.”
“Section 13-B cannot, therefore, be treated as an arbitrary classification that infringes and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The challenge predicated on the basis of unconstitutionality of the classification is rejected.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 13-B, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
- Section 18-A, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949
- Section 87, Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966
- Article 14, Constitution
- Article 246, Constitution
- Article 254, Constitution
Case and bench
- Parties
- Ram Krishan Grover v. Union of India
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 8597 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 26925 of 2011), with Civil Appeal Nos. 8598 to 8605 of 2019
- Decided
- 14 November 2019
- Bench
- Ranjan Gogoi, L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment written by Sanjiv Khanna, J. and signed by all three Judges.
Questions on this case
5 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.