JUDGMENT
Cyriac Joseph, Ag. C.J.
1. The petitioner has filed this Original Petition
praying for a declaration that Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of
the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Act 2 of
1965) as null and void as it is violative of the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 14 of 21 of the Constitution
of India and also that Act 2 of 1965 is enforceable throughout
the State of Kerala even without a resolution of the local
authority concerned. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ
of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the said Act
throughout the State of Kerala with immediate effect.
2. For convenience, Section 1 of Act 2 of 1965 is
extracted hereunder:
“1. Short title, extent, application and commencement:
(1) This Act may be called the Kerala Building
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Kerala.
(3) It applies to the areas mentioned in the
Schedule and the Government may, by notification
in the Gazette, apply all or any of the provisions
of this Act to any other area in the State with
effect from such date as may be specified in the
notification, and may, by like notification,
cancel or modify such notification or withdraw the
application of all or any of the provisions of
this Act from any area mentioned in the Schedule:
Provided that no such notification shall be
issued unless it is supported by a resolution
passed by the local authority or authorities, if
any, of the areas affected by the notification.
(4) It shall be deemed to have come into force on
the first day of April, 1965.”
The challenge of the petitioner is against the proviso to
Sub-section (3) of Section 1 which requires that no
notification under Sub-section (3) shall be issued unless it is
supported by a resolution passed by the local authority or
authorities, if any, of the areas affected by the notification.
Act 2 of 1965 was legislated to regulate the leasing of
buildings and to control the rent of such buildings in the
State of Kerala. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 1, the Act
extends to the whole of the State of Kerala. For making the
provisions of the Act applicable to the areas mentioned in the
Schedule, a pre-condition has been imposed by Sub-section (3).
The pre-condition is that the local authority, if any, of the
area should have passed a resolution to support the
notification making the provisions of the Act applicable to
area.
3. According to the petitioner, the said Act was
enacted with the object of giving protection to the weaker
sections based on the concept of social justice and the Rent
Control Act is a self contained Statute and the rights and
liabilities of the landlord and the tenant are to be governed
by its provisions and not by the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act or any other law. It is true that the Legislature
made the above law with a laudable object. But while making
the law the Legislature itself specified that the application
of the provisions of the Act to areas other than those
mentioned in the Scheduled will depend on the decision of the
local authority concerned. In other words, the Legislature
wants the local authority to consider and recommend whether the
ground realities in a particular area call for application of
the provisions of the Act. Obviously, the Legislature felt
that such a role should be assigned to the local authority
concerned, presumably because, the local authority will be in a
better position to understand and assess the ground realities
and to decide whether the provisions of the Act should be
applicable to the area concerned. It is possible that in view
of the ground realities in a particular area, the application
of the provisions of the Act may be unnecessary or it may
create hardship to the persons who are likely to be affected by
the application of the provisions of the Act. If the
Legislature wanted to take the local authorities into confidence
and to assign them a role in deciding whether the provisions of
the Act should be made applicable to the area concerned, it is
the legislative policy which cannot be called in question by
this court unless it is unconstitutional or illegal. We do not
find anything unconstitutional or illegal in the impugned
provision. In the age of de-centralisation of power and
devolution of powers to local bodies, the above mentioned
legislative policy is a step in the positive direction. In our
view, the impugned provision does not violate any of the
provisions of the Constitution of India or infringe the
fundamental rights of any person including the petitioner.
4. There is no merit in the Original Petition and the
Original Petition is dismissed.