Skip to content


Haji Mohd Shafi Vs. Ist Addl. Munsif and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Appeal No. 1 of 1964
Judge
Reported inAIR1965All23
ActsUttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947; ;Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act, 1951 - Sections 1A; ;Constitution of India - Article 14
AppellantHaji Mohd Shafi
Respondentist Addl. Munsif and anr.
Advocates:V.K. Barman, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....eviction act, 1947 - control depends not only on necessity but also on its effect - applies on new houses - aim not to discourage construction - provision do not hit article 14 of constitution of india. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain..........or not depends not only upon the necessity of controls but also upon the effect of controls. in respect ofhouses already constructed there is no question of effect of controls upon construction; this question can arise in its very nature only in respect of new houses i.e houses to be constructed in future. themain object behind the act is to provide accommodation to the needy and the greater the number ofhouses the more is the object served. the actshould, therefore, permit construction of new housesand not discourage it. the question whether theconstruction of houses should be permitted or discouraged can arise only in respect of new housesand cannot arise in respect of old or existing houses.in respect of new houses there is to be considerednot only the necessity of controlling.....
Judgment:

Desai, C.J.

1. The question raised before us in this appeal is whether Section 1-A introduced in the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, by Second Amendment Act No. 9 of 1961 hits Article 14 of the Constitution or not. The Act as originally enacted in 1947 controlled letting of all existing and future houses The letting was controlled by placing restrictions upon landlord's powers to let out houses, to enhance rent and to eject tenants Subsequently it was found by the State that this control prevented persons from constructing new houses because on account of it they did not expect to make as such profit from the construction as they could from other investments. Hence the Legislature enacted Act No. 9 of 1951; in the Statement of Objects and Reasons it was expressly stated that the working of the Act has shown that 'control over new buildings has retarded the construction of new buildings'. Section 1-A was added laying down that the Act would not apply to buildings under construction, or constructed after 1-1-1951. What was contended by Sri Barman is that this reason that controlling, new houses retarded the construction of new houses has nothing to do with the question whether whatever new houses are constructed should be controlled or not. The necessity of controlling the letting of new houses is exactly the same as that controlling the letting of old houses; the necessity has not undergone any change justifying withdrawal of the control of letting of new houses.

2. Therefore, it was contended that there was no rational basis for differentiating new houses from old houses and removing the former from the controls imposed by the Act. That there is such a necessity, or no necessity, for controlling the letting of new houses is not the sole ground that would justify division of houses into old houses and new houses. Whether the letting should be controlled or not depends not only upon the necessity of controls but also upon the effect of controls. In respect ofhouses already constructed there is no question of effect of controls upon construction; this question can arise in its very nature only in respect of new houses i.e houses to be constructed in future. Themain object behind the Act is to provide accommodation to the needy and the greater the number ofhouses the more is the object served. The Actshould, therefore, permit construction of new housesand not discourage it. The question whether theconstruction of houses should be permitted or discouraged can arise only in respect of new housesand cannot arise in respect of old or existing houses.In respect of new houses there is to be considerednot only the necessity of controlling their lettingbut also the effect of controls upon their construction. Since the construction of new houses shouldnot be discouraged there is justification for not controlling their letting. As in respect of new housesthere arises not only the question of the need ofcontrols but also the question of not discouragingtheir construction, this additional fact to be considered differentiates them from old houses andjustifies removing them from the controls imposedunder the Act Therefore, it cannot be said thatthe provision contained in Section 1-A hits Article 14, andwe dismiss this special appeal summarily


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //