*D.C. Bhatia v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 104
*Not Printed
Civil Appeals Nos. 4264, 4345, 4351, 4353 to 4357, 4489 and 5080 of 1991, 447 of 1992, Spl. Leave Petns. (Civil) Nos. 11376, 12822 etc. etc. of 1991, 8272, 13586 of 1992, 142 and 11069 of 1993, Writ Petns. (Civil) Nos. 38, 1141 of 1989, 228, 946 of 1990, 9, 843, 920 and 1134 of 1991, 53, 166, 492 etc. etc. of 1992, 16, 54, 251, 257, 262 etc. etc. of 1993, 436 and 238 of 1994 decided on 19/10/1994
Headnote
(A) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) , S.3(C)— Validity – Protection under Act – Exclusion of premises, residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3500 – S.3(c) is not violative of Art.14 of Constitution.Houses and Rents – Exclusion of premises fetching rent more than Rs. 3500 from purview of Act – Not invalid. Rent Acts – Protection of – Exclusion of premises fetching rent over 3,500 – Valid. Constitution of India , Art.14—
In the instant case, the classification of the premises for extending benefit under Act has been made on the basis of the rent payable on the premises. A person, who can afford to pay more than Rs. 42,000/- a year by way of rent will be, by any standard, an affluent person in our society. He cannot be said to belong to the weaker section of the community. If a man is paying more than Rs. 42,000/- per year by way of rent, then his annual income should be at least Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum. Having regard to the average income of the people in India, such a person cannot be treated as an economically handicapped person. However, it is for the Legislature to decide whether or not any section of the people should be protected in any way by law.For this purpose, the Legislature can identify the section of the people who needs protection and decide now the classification will be done or what will be the cut-off point for the purpose of making such classification. The classification may be done on income basis or rental basis or some other basis. The Court can only consider whether the classification has been done on an understandable basis having regard to the object of the statute. The Court will not question its validity on the ground of lack of legislative wisdom. Moreover, the classification cannot be done with mathematical precision.The Legislature must have considerable latitude for making the classification having regard to the surrounding circumstances and facts. The Court cannot act as a super-legislature and decide whether cut-off point for the classification on the basis of monthly rent should be Rs. 3,500/- or Rs. 4,000/- or Rs. 5,000/-. If the classification is totally irrational and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute, then only will the Court strike down such classification. Therefore the provisions under S. 3(c) excluding of the premises residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3,500, from purview of the Act would not be violative of Art. 14 of Constitution.(Para 28 38 45 46 47 48)
(B) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) , S.3(C)— Applicability – Exclusion of section of tenants from protection under Act – Tenants acquire no vested right in properties occupied by him – S. 3(c) as amended in 1988 would be applicable to premises which were already let out when amendment came into force. General Clauses Act (10 of 1897) , S.6—
The tenant enjoyed statutory protection as long as the statute remained in force and was applicable to him. If the statute ceases to be operative, the tenant cannot claim to continue to have the old statutory protection. The provisions of a repealed statute cannot be relied upon after it has been repealed. But, what has been acquired under the Repealed Act cannot be disturbed. But, if any new or further step is needed to be taken under the Act, that cannot be taken even after the Act is repealed. In the instant case, the Legislature has decided to curtail or take away the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act from a section of the tenants.The tenants had not acquired any vested right under the Delhi Rent Control Act, but had a right to take advantage of the provisions of the repealed Act so long as that law remained in force. Therefore it cannot be said that the tenants had acquired a vested right in the properties occupied by them under the statute. Thus the provisions of Section 3(c) now also apply to the premises which had already been let out at the monthly rent in excess of Rs. 3,500/- when the amendment made in 1988 came into force.(Para 50 51 53 55)
(C) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) , S.3(C)— Applicability – Exclusion of premises whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3500 from purview of Act – “Rent” does not mean “standard rent” – There is no pre-condition of fixation of standard rent before application of provisions of S.3(c).
The scheme and the purpose of the Act are clear. Tenants who could afford to pay more than Rs. 3,500/ – per month by way of rent, were being removed from the protective umbrella of the Rent Act. Only thing that has to be seen for the purpose of deciding the class of tenants, who were being excluded from the ambit of the Rent Act was the exact amount of monthly rent that was being paid on the relevant date i.e. 1-12-1988. There is no pre-condition of fixation of standard rent before application of the provisions of S. 3(c) of the Act. The plea that unless ‘standard rent’ was determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, the provisions of Section 3(c) could not be made applicable would not be tenable as Section 3(c) speaks of premises ‘whose monthly rent exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees’.(Para 56 58 59)
One Stop destination for DU LLB students 