{"id":231727,"date":"1987-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987"},"modified":"2015-01-23T10:23:53","modified_gmt":"2015-01-23T04:53:53","slug":"prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987","title":{"rendered":"Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2117, \t\t 1988 SCR (1)\t 1<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPRABHAKARAN NAIR, ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/09\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 2117\t\t  1988 SCR  (1)\t  1\n 1987 SCC  (4) 238\t  JT 1987 (3)\t492\n 1987 SCALE  (2)469\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1988 SC 485\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\n     Landlord-Tenant matter-Tamil  Nadu Buildings (Lease and\nRent Control) Act, 1960-Sections 14(1)(b), 16(2) and 30(ii)-\nVires of-Challenged.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     There was\t'much ado  about nothing'  about these\tWrit\nPetitions  under   Article  32\t of  the  Constitution.\t The\npetitions  sought   to\tchallenge   the\t Vires\tof  sections\n14(1)(b), 16(2)\t and, incidentally, sec. 30(ii) of the Tamil\nNadu Buildings\t(Lease and  Rent Control)  Act, 1960  on the\nground of  being arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable.\nThe different  petitions had  different facts,\tand  it\t was\nconsidered appropriate\tto deal\t with the  facts of the writ\npetition filed by Prabhakaran Nair (Writ Petition No. 506 of\n1986) as a typical case to appreciate the points in issue.\n     In\t that\tcase,\tthe   respondents-landlords,   after\npurchasing the premises in dispute from the erstwhile owner,\nfiled an application for the eviction of the petitioner from\nthe said  premises on  the grounds  of non-payment  of\trent\nunder section  10(2)(1), unlawful  sub-letting under section\n10(2)(ii)(a), causing  damages to the premises under section\n10(2)(iii) and demolition and reconstruction of the premises\nunder section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act. The Trial\nCourt ordered  eviction only  under section  14(1)(b) of the\nAct for\t demolition and\t reconstruction, rejecting the other\ngrounds. The  appellate court  dismissed the  appeal of\t the\npetitioner. The High Court also dismissed the civil revision\npetition of  the petitioner.  The petitioner  then  filed  a\npetition  for  Special\tLeave  in  this\t Court\tagainst\t the\njudgment and  order of the High Court. In the meanwhile, the\nCity Civil  Court, on  January\t29,  1983,  granted  interim\ninjunction,  restraining   the\trespondents-landlords\tfrom\ndemolishing the building till the disposal of an application\nfiled by  the petitioner  in the suit, against the erstwhile\nowner and  the present landlords for specific performance of\nan agreement  to sell  the premises  to the  petitioner. The\ninjunction was\tstated to  have been confirmed and was still\ncontinuing as  the said application for specific performance\nwas still pending in the City Civil Court.\n2\n     This Court\t dismissed the\tpetition for  special leave,\nobserving that\tthe petitioner\twould be at liberty to file,\nif so  advised, a  writ petition  under Article\t 32  of\t the\nConstitution, challenging  the validity\t of section 14(1)(b)\nof  the\t Act.  The  petitioner\tfiled  this  writ  petition,\nchallenging the\t validity of  sections 14(1)(b) and 16(2) of\nthe Tamil  Nadu Rent Act as being arbitrary, discriminatory,\nunreasonable   and    unconstitutional,\t   and\t  contending\nconsequently that  the eviction\t order\tpassed\tagainst\t him\nunder section  14(1)(b) was  illegal. Several  of the  other\nwrit petitions were on this issue.\n     Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: In  this case,  the Court  was not concerned with\nclause (ii) of section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Act, a challenge\nto the\tvalidity of  which had been accepted by the Court in\nRattan Arya  and others\t v. State of Tamil Nadu and another,\n[1986] 3  S.C.C. 385  and the section 30(ii) had been struck\ndown as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [10E]\n     Under section  14(1)(b) of\t the Act,  a landlord  could\nmake an application to the Rent Controller for possession of\na building,  and the  Rent Controller, if satisfied that the\nbuilding was  bona fide\t required by  the landlord  for\t the\nimmediate purpose  of demolition and such demolition was for\nthe purpose  of erecting  a new\t building on the site of the\nbuilding sought\t to be\tdemolished,  might  pass  an  order,\ndirecting the  tenant to  deliver possession of the building\nto  the\t  landlord  before   a\tspecified  date.  Under\t the\nprovisions of the Act, the landlord has to commence the work\nof demolition  not later  than\tone  month  and\t the  entire\ndemolition work\t shall be  completed before  the  expiry  of\nthree months  from the\tdate he\t recovers possession  of the\nentire building,  and in  the  case  of\t massive  buildings,\ndemolition can\ttake six  months or  even a  year, in  which\ncase, for  reasons to be recorded in writing, the controller\nmay allow  further period.  During that\t period a tenant was\nbound  to   have  found\t  some\tother  suitable\t alternative\naccommodation. In the case of a building vacated for repairs\nunder section  14(1)(a) of the Act, a tenant may arrange for\na temporary  accommodation for\ta few months and then return\nto the\tbuilding.  It  was  not\t practicable  and  would  be\nanomalous to  expect a\tlandlord to take back a tenant for a\nre-constructed building\t after a  long lapse  of time during\nwhich the  tenant must\tnecessarily have  found\t some  other\nsuitable accommodation.\t This was  the true  purpose  behind\nsection 14(1)(b) read with section 14(2)(b). In that view of\nthe matter,  the Court\twas unable  to accept the submission\nthat in\t providing for the re-induction of the tenant in the\ncase of repairs and not in the\n3\ncase of\t re-construction, there\t was  any  unreasonable\t and\nirrational classification  without any basis. The absence of\nthe provision  for reinduction\tdoes not ipso facto make the\nprovisions of the Act unfair or make the Act self-defeating.\n[11G, 12A-C,D-G, 18E]\n     As regards\t the submission\t that in  most of  the\tRent\nActs, there  was a  provision for re-induction of the tenant\nafter re-construction,\tbut in\tthe case  of the  Tamil Nadu\nAct, there  was no  such provision and this was violative of\nArticle\t 14   of  the\tConstitution,  Article\t 14  of\t the\nConstitution does  not authorise  the striking down of a law\nof one\tState on  the ground  that in contrast with a law of\nanother State  on the  same  subjects,\tits  provisions\t are\ndiscriminatory, and  nor does  it contemplate  a law  of the\ncentre or  of the  State dealing with similar subjects being\nheld to\t be unconstitutional  by a  process  of\t comparative\nstudy of  the provisions  of two  enactments; the  source of\nauthority for  the two\tstatutes being different, Article 14\ncould have  no application,  as observed  by a\tConstitution\nBench of  this Court  in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C.\nMandawar,<\/a> [1955] 1 S.C.R. 599. [12G, 13A-C]\n     The Act  sought to\t restore the  balance in  the  scale\nwhich is  otherwise weighted in favour of the stronger party\nwhich had  larger bargaining  power. The  Act  balances\t the\nscales and  regulates the  rights of  the parties fairly and\ncannot be  construed only  in favour of the tenant. The main\nprovision of  section 14(1)(b) enables a landlord to make an\napplication to\tthe rent  controller for  possession of\t the\nbuilding  for\tdemolition  for\t re-construction  of  a\t new\nbuilding in  its place.\t If the Rent Controller is satisfied\nwith the  bona fide  need of  the landlord,  he may  pass an\norder, directing  the tenant  to deliver  possession of\t the\nbuilding to the landlord before a specified date. There must\nbe a  bona fide\t need of  the landlord. It could not be said\nthat section  14(1)(b)\twas  arbitrary\tand  that  excessive\npowers had been given to the landlords. [16G-H, 17D-E]\n     The provisions  of the  Act imposed restrictions on the\nlandlord's right  under the  common law\t or the\t Transfer of\nProperty Act  to evict\tthe tenant  after the termination of\nhis tenancy.  The nature,  the form  and the  extent of\t the\nrestrictions to\t be imposed  on\t the  landlord's  right\t and\nconsequent extent  of the  protection to  be  given  to\t the\ntenants is  a matter  of legislative policy and judgment. It\nis inevitably  bound to\t vary  from  one  State\t to  another\naccording to  the local,  peculiar conditions  prevailing in\neach State.  When the Courts are confronted with the problem\nof a  legislation being\t violative of Article 14, the Courts\nare not\t concerned with the unwisdom of the legislation. \"In\nshort, unconstitutionality and not unwisdom of a legislation\nis the narrow area of judicial review\"\n4\nobservations of\t Krishna Iyer,\tJ. in  Murthy  Match  Works,\netc., v.  Asstt. Collector  of Central Excise, etc., [1974]3\nS.C.R. 121, may be seen in this connection. [18F-H,19G]\n     The  purpose  underlying  section\t14(1)(b)  read\twith\nsection 16(2)  of the  Act is  to  remove  or  mitigate\t the\ndisinclination on the part of the landlords to expend moneys\nfor demolition\tof the dilapidated buildings and reconstruct\nnew buildings  in their\t places. It  is a  matter  of  which\njudicial notice\t can be\t taken that  the return from the old\nand dilapidated\t buildings is  very meagre,  and in  several\ncases, such  buildings prove  uneconomic for  the landlords,\nresulting in  the deterioration\t of  the  condition  of\t the\nbuildings, and\tthere are  even collapses of such buildings.\nIt is for this purpose that the landlord is given by section\n14(1)(b), read\twith section 16, an incentive in the form of\nexemption from\tthe provisions\tof the Act for five years in\nrespect\t of   the  reconstructed   building.  The  principle\nunderlying such\t exemption is not discriminatory against the\ntenants, nor  is it  against the  policy of the Act. It only\nserves as  an incentive\t to the\t landlord  for\tcreation  of\nadditional accommodation  to meet the growing housing needs.\nThese  provisions   providing  for   exemption\tof  the\t new\nbuildings from\tthe provisions\tof the Rent Act for a period\nof five\t years or ten years were upheld vide the decision of\nthis Court  in Punjab Tin Supply Co., Chandigarh and Ors. v.\nThe Central  Govt. &  Ors.,<\/a> [1984] 1 S.C.C. 206 at 216, 217.\n[20C-G]\n     The Court\twas unable to accept the submission that the\nabsence of  the right  of induction  of the  tenants in\t the\nreconstructed premises was either arbitrary or unreasonable.\nThe Act\t must be  so construed that it harmonises the rights\nof the\tlandlords and  at the same time protects the tenants\nand also  serves best the purpose of the Act, and one of the\npurposes of  the Act  is to  solve  the\t acute\tshortage  of\naccommodation by  making rational  basis  for  eviction\t and\nencouraging building and re-building which is at the root of\nall causes of shortage of accommodation. [23D;24E-F]\n     OBITER: There is an acute shortage of housing. The laws\nrelating to letting and landlord and tenant in the different\nStates have  from different  States' angles tried to grapple\nwith the  problem. Yet,\t in view  of the  magnitude  of\t the\nproblem,  the\tproblem\t has   become  insoluble   and\t the\nlitigations  abound   and  people   suffer.   More   houses,\ntherefore, must be built and more accommodation must be made\navailable for  the people  to  live  in.  The  laws  of\t the\nlandlord and  tenant must  be made rational, humane, certain\nand capable  of being  quickly\timplemented.  The  landlords\nhaving premises in their control should be induced and\n5\nencouraged to  part  with  the\tavailable  accommodation  on\ncertain\t safe-guards   which  will   strictly  ensure  their\nrecovery when  wanted. Men with money should be given proper\nand meaningful incentives, as in some European countries, to\nbuild houses. Tax holidays for new houses can be encouraged.\nThe tenants should also be given protection and security and\ncertain amount\tof reasonableness in the rent. Escalation of\nprices in  the urban  properties, land, materials and houses\nmust be\t rationably checked.  The country  very vitally\t and\nurgently requires  a National  Housing Policy  if we want to\nprevent a major breakdown of law and gradual disillusionment\nof the\tpeople. After  all shelter is one of our fundamental\nrights. The  New National  Housing Policy  must attract\t new\nbuildings, rationalise\tthe  rent  structure  and  the\trent\nprovisions and\tbring certain  amount of uniformity, leaving\nscope for  sufficient  flexibility  amongst  the  States  to\nadjust such legislation according to their needs. This Court\nand the\t High Courts  should also  be relieved\tof the heavy\nburden of  the rent  litigations. Tier\tof appeals should be\ncurtailed.  Laws   must\t be   simple,  rational\t and  clear.\nLitigation must\t come to  an end  quickly. Such\t New Housing\nPolicy\tmust  comprehend  the  present\tand  anticipate\t the\nfuture. The idea of a National Rent Tribunal on an All India\nbasis  should\tbe  examined.  This  has  become  an  urgent\nimperative of  today's revolution.  A fast  changing society\ncannot operate with unchanging law and preconceived judicial\nattitude. [25B-H]\n     Rattan Arya  and others  v. State\tof  Tamil  Nadu\t and\nanother, [1986]\t 3 SCC\t385; State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C.\nMandawar,<\/a> [1955]  1 SCR\t 599; S. Kannappa Pillai and another\nv. B. Venkatarathnam, 78 Law Weekly 363; P.J. Irani v. State\nof Madras,<\/a> [1962] 2 SCR 169; S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State\nof Tamil  Nadu and<\/a> another, [1985] 2 SCR 398; Raval & Co. v.\nK.C. Ramachandran  &  Ors.,<\/a>  [1974]  2\tSCR  629;  Murlidhar\nAgarwal and  another v.\t State of  U.P. and others, [1975] 1\nSCR 575;  Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory\nv. Subbash  Chandra  Yograj  Sinha,<\/a>  [1962]  2\tS.C.R.\t159;\nMetalware &  Co., etc.\tv. Bansilal  Sharma and\t Ors., etc.,\n[1979] 3  S.C.R. 1107;\tMeta Ram v. Jiwan Lal,<\/a> [1962] Suppl.\n2.S.C.R. 623;  Murthy  Match  Works,  etc.  etc.  v.  Asstt.\nCollector of  Central Excise,  etc., [1974] 3 S.C.R. 121; In\nre: The\t Special Courts\t Bill, 1978,  [1979] 2\tS.C.R.\t476;\nPunjab Tin Supply Co. Chandigarh & Ors. v. The Central Govt.\nJUDGMENT<\/a>:\n<\/pre>\n
State of  Haryana and  Anr., [1985]  4 SCC  221 at 226, 227;
\nMehsin Bhai  v. Hale  and Company  G. T.  Madras,  [1964]  2
\nMadras Law  Journal 147;  Metalware  Co.  etc.\tv.  Bansilal
\nSharma and  others, etc., [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1107 at 1117, 1118
\nPunjab Tin  Supply Co.,\t Chandigarh etc. etc. v. The Central
\nGovt. and  Ors., [1984] 1 SCR 428; Motor General Traders and
\nAnr. etc. etc. v.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. etc., [1984] 1 SCR 594
\nat 605;\t Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana and Ors.,<\/a> [1986] 2
\nS.C.R. 249;  Panchamal Narayan\tShenoy v.  Basthi Venkatesha
\nShenoy,<\/a> [1970]\t3 SCR  734; Jiwanlal & Co. and Ors. v. Manot
\nand Co., Ltd., 64 Calcutta Weekly Notes, 932 at 937 and M\/s.
\nPatel Road-ways\t Private Limited,  Madras v.  State of Tamil
\nNadu and Ors., A.I.R.<\/a> 1985 Madras 115, referred to.\n<\/p>\n
&
\n     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition  No. 506  of 1986
\netc.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
\n     J.\t Ramamurthi,   V.  Shanker,  B.\t Parthasarthi,\tRaju
\nRamachandran, S.  Srinivasan, M.C. Verma, C.S. Vaidyanathan,
\nK.R.R. Pillai, E.C. Aggarwala, V. Balachandran, N.K. Sharma,
\nM.N. Krishnamani,  Diwan  Balakram,  A.T.M.  Sampath,  Mukul
\nMudgal, V.  Balachandran, V. Shekhar, K. Parasaran, Attorney
\nGeneral, Soli  J. Sorabjee, Shanti Bhushan, A.K. Verma, D.N.
\nMishra, A.V.  Rangam, P.N. Ramalingam and M. Raghuraman, for
\nappearing parties.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SABYASACHI\t MUKHARJI,  J.\tThere  is  ‘much  ado  about
\nnothing’  about\t  these\t cases.\t  These\t petitions  seek  to
\nchallenge the vires of section 14(1)(b) and section 16(2) as
\nwell as\t incidentally  section\t30(ii)\tof  the\t Tamil\tNadu
\nBuildings (Lease  and Rent  Control) Act,  1960 (hereinafter
\ncalled ‘the  Tamil Nadu\t Rent Act’)  on the  ground of being
\narbitrary,  discriminatory   and   unreasonable.   Different
\npetitions deal\twith different facts. It is not necessary to
\nset these  out exhaustively  but it  would be appropriate to
\ndeal with  the facts  of Writ  Petition No. 506 of 1986 as a
\ntypical one  in order  to appreciate the points in issue. In
\nWrit Petition No. 506 of 1986, the respondent-landlord on or
\nabout 21st  of March,  1978 after  purchasing  the  premises
\nNo.95, Thyagaraja  Road, T. Nagar, Madras from the erstwhile
\nowner, filed  an eviction  petition in\tthe court  of  Small
\nCauses, Madras\tfor eviction  of the  petitioner herein from
\nthe premises  where the\t petitioner had\t been carrying\ton a
\nhotel business\tserving meals  etc. for\t four  decades.\t The
\ngrounds in  the eviction  petition were\t non-payment of rent
\nunder sec-\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
tion 10(2)(1)  of the  Tamil Nadu  Rent Act,  unlawful\tsub-
\nletting under  section 10(2)(ii)(a),  causing damages to the
\npremises under\tsection 10(2)(iii) and also for the purposes
\nof demolition and reconstruction under section 14(1)(b).\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Judge of  the trial court ordered eviction
\nunder section  14(1)(b) of  the Tamil Nadu Rent Act only for
\ndemolition  and\t  reconstruction  and  dismissed  the  other
\ngrounds, and  that is  the only\t ground with  which  we\t are
\nconcerned in  this appeal.  On 25th  of February,  1981\t the
\nAppellate Court\t dismissed the petitioner’s appeal by saying
\nthat  the   landlords  were   rich  people  and\t capable  of
\ndemolition and\treconstruction in  order to put the premises
\nto a  more profitable  use by putting up their own showroom.
\nOn September  30, 1982\tthe High  Court dismissed  the civil
\nrevision petition  of the  petitioner and  granted time till
\n31st of\t January, 1983\tfor the\t petitioner  to\t vacate\t the
\npremises in  question. The  petitioner\tthereafter  filed  a
\nspecial leave petition against the judgment and order of the
\nHigh Court  in this Court. This Court initially ordered show
\ncause notice  and also\tgranted ad  interim ex-parte stay of
\ndispossession. On  29th January,  1983 the City Civil Court,
\nMadras\t granted    interim   injunction   restraining\t the
\nrespondents from  demolishing the building till the disposal
\nof the\tapplication in\tthe suit  filed\t by  the  petitioner
\nagainst the  erstwhile owner  and the  present landlords for
\nspecific performance of an agreement to sell the premises to
\nthe petitioner.\t According to  the petitioner the injunction
\nwas confirmed and was still continuing and the said suit for
\nspecific performance  was also\tpending in  the\t City  Civil
\nCourt, Madras.\n<\/p>\n
     On 17th  of February,  1986 this  Court  dismissed\t the
\nspecial leave  petition after  notice but  directed that the
\ndecree for  eviction would not be executed till 17.11.86. It
\nwas observed  by this  Court that the petitioner would be at
\nliberty to  file a  writ petition  under Article  32 of\t the
\nConstitution, if  so advised,  challenging the\tvalidity  of
\nsection 14(1)(b)  of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act as mentioned on
\nbehalf of  the petitioner.  The petitioner  filed this\twrit
\npetition challenging  the validity  of section\t14(1)(b) and
\nsection 16(2)  of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act on the ground that
\nthese  were   arbitrary,  discriminatory,  unreasonable\t and
\nunconstitutional.  The\tpetitioner  contends  in  this\twrit
\npetition that  consequently the\t eviction order passed under
\nsection 14(1)(b)  and confirmed\t in appeal  is also illegal.
\nThe aforesaid  several of  the writ  petitions are  on\tthis
\nissue.\n<\/p>\n
     The main  ground of  attack on  this aspect seems to be
\nthat while
\n8<\/span>
\nother Rent  Acts in  case of  eviction for demolition permit
\nand direct  that after\treconstruction the  tenant should be
\ninducted as tenant or given the opportunity to have the same
\nspace in  the reconstructed  building, in the instant Act no
\nsuch option is given and no such obligation imposed upon the
\nlandlord and  as such  the impugned  provision is illegal as
\nbeing discriminatory against the tenant. In order to examine
\nthe various aspects on this contention, it will be necessary
\nto examine  in detail the relevant provisions of the Act. It
\nshould be  borne in  mind, however,  that this\twas  an\t Act
\npassed to  amend and  consolidate the  law relating  to\t the
\nregulation of the letting of residential and non-residential
\nbuildings and the control of rents of such buildings and the
\nprevention of  unreasonable eviction of tenants in the State
\nof Tamil  Nadu. Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act states
\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  ” 14.\t Recovery  of  possession  by  landlord\t for
\n\t  repairs or for reconstruction.-(1) Notwithstanding
\n\t  anything contained in this Act, but subject to the
\n\t  provisions  of   sections  12\t  and  13,   on\t  an
\n\t  application made  by a  landlord,  the  Controller
\n\t  shall, if he is satisfied-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a) that\t the building  is bona fide required
\n\t  by the  landlord for\tcarrying out  repairs  which
\n\t  cannot be  carried out  without the building being
\n\t  vacated; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b) that\t the building  is bona fide required
\n\t  by the  landlord  for\t the  immediate\t purpose  of
\n\t  demolishing it  and such  demolition is to be made
\n\t  for the  purpose of erecting a new building on the
\n\t  site of the building sought to be demolished, pass
\n\t  an  order   directing\t the   tenant\tto   deliver
\n\t  possession of\t the building to the landlord before
\n\t  a specified date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (2) No  order directing the tenant to deliver
\n\t  possession of\t the  building\tunder  this  section
\n\t  shall be passed-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a) on  the ground specified in clause (a) of
\n\t  subsection  (1),  unless  the\t landlord  gives  an
\n\t  undertaking that the building shall, on completion
\n\t  of the  repairs, be  offered to  the\ttenant,\t who
\n\t  delivered possession\tin  pursuance  of  an  order
\n\t  under sub-section (1) for his re-occupation before
\n\t  the expiry  of  three\t months\t from  the  date  of
\n\t  recovery of  possession by the landlord, or before
\n\t  the  expiry\tof  such   further  period   as\t the
\n\t  Controller may,  for reasons\tto  be\trecorded  in
\n\t  writing, allow; or
\n9<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b) on  the ground specified in clause (b) of
\n\t  subsection  (1),  unless  the\t landlord  gives  an
\n\t  undertaking  that  the  work\tof  demolishing\t any
\n\t  material  portion   of  the\tbuilding  shall\t  be
\n\t  substantially commenced  by him not later than one
\n\t  month and  shall be completed before the expiry of
\n\t  three months\tfrom the date he recovers possession
\n\t  of the  entire building  or before  the expiry  of
\n\t  such further\tperiod as  the Controller  may,\t for
\n\t  reasons to be recorded in writing, allow.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (3) Nothing  contained in  this section shall
\n\t  entitle the  landlord who has recovered possession
\n\t  of  the   building  for   repairs  to\t  convert  a
\n\t  residential  building\t  into\t a   non-residential
\n\t  building or  a  non-residential  building  into  a
\n\t  residential building\tunless\tsuch  conversion  is
\n\t  permitted by the Controller at the time of passing
\n\t  an order under subsection (1).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (4) Notwithstanding  an order  passed by\t the
\n\t  Controller under  clause (a)\tof  sub-section\t (1)
\n\t  directing the\t tenant to deliver possession of the
\n\t  building, such  tenant shall be deemed to continue
\n\t  to be\t the tenant,  but the  landlord shall not be
\n\t  entitled to  any rent for the period commencing on
\n\t  the date of delivery of possession of the building
\n\t  by the  tenant to the landlord and ending with the
\n\t  date on  which the  building\tis  offered  to\t the
\n\t  tenant  by   the  landlord  in  pursuance  of\t the
\n\t  undertaking under clause (a) of subsection (2).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (5) Nothing in this section shall entitle any
\n\t  landlord of  a building  in respect  of which\t the
\n\t  Government shall  be deemed  to be  the tenant  to
\n\t  make any application under this section”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 15\t empowers  the\ttenant\tto  re-occupy  after
\nrepairs. There\tis no  such provision in case of eviction on
\nthe  ground   of  bona\t fide  need   for   demolition\t and
\nreconstruction. This is one of the grounds of challenge.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 16 deals with the right of the tenant to occupy
\nthe building  if it is not demolished. Sub-section (2) which
\nwas amended  and introduced  by Act  23 of 1973 dealing with
\nthe reconstructed building reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “16(2) Where\tin pursuance  of an  order passed by
\n\t  the Controller under clause (b) of sub-section (1)
\n\t  of section  14, any building is totally demolished
\n\t  and a\t new building  is erected  in its place, all
\n\t  the provisions of this Act shall cease to apply to
\n\t  such new  building for a period of five years from
\n\t  the date  on which  the construction\tof such\t new
\n\t  building is  completed and  notified to  the local
\n\t  authority concerned.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In this  connection section  30 which  exempts  certain
\nbuildings  may\t be  referred  to  and\tsub-section  (i)  is
\nimportant. It reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “30. Exemption  in the  case of certain buildings-
\n\t  Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (i) any\tbuilding for  a period of five years
\n\t  from\tthe   date  on\twhich  the  construction  is
\n\t  completed  and   notified   to   local   authority
\n\t  concerned; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (ii) any residential building or part thereof
\n\t  occupied by  any one\ttenant if  the monthly\trent
\n\t  paid by  him in  respect of  that building or part
\n\t  exceeds (four hundred rupees).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In this appeal we are not concerned with clause (ii) of
\nsection 30 the challenge to whose validity has been accepted
\nby this\t Court in  Rattan Arya\tand others v. State of Tamil
\nNadu and another, [1986] 3 S.C.C. 385. Section 30(ii) of the
\nTamil Nadu  Rent Act  has been\tstruck down  as violative of
\nArticle 14.\n<\/p>\n
       Various\tsubmissions were  urged in  support  of\t the
\nseveral writ  petitions. Sree  Raju  Ramachandran  contended
\nthat in most of the Indian statutes dealing with eviction of
\ntenants, there\tare provisions of re-induction of the tenant
\nwhere  the   eviction  is   obtained  on   the\t ground\t  of
\nreconstruction\t after\t the   premises\t  in   question\t  is
\nreconstructed. It  was submitted  that\tin  those  statutes,
\nthere is  obligation on the landlord to reconstruct within a
\ncertain period\tand the\t corresponding right  on the  tenant
\nevicted to  be re-inducted at the market rate to be fixed by
\nthe Rent  Controller or\t by such  authority as the Court may
\ndirect.\n<\/p>\n
       Our  attention was drawn to several statutes, namely,
\nMaharashtra, Karnataka,\t Kerala, West  Bengal  and  numerous
\nothers where  there are provisions for re-induction of other
\ntenants in  the premises  after reconstruction.\t Most of the
\nprovisions of  other statutes  provide\tfor  such  induction
\nwhile the Tamil Nadu Rent Act does not. On this
\n11<\/span>
\nground\tit   was  submitted,  that  firstly,  that  this  is
\nviolative of  Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further
\nsubmitted that section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act says
\nthat where  in pursuance  of an\t order of eviction passed by
\nthe Rent  Controller under  section 14(1)(b) any building is
\ntotally demolished  and a  new building\t is erected  in\t its
\nplace, all the provisions of the Act shall cease to apply to
\nsuch new  building for\ta  period  of  five  years.  It\t was
\nsubmitted that neither the old tenant nor any new tenant was
\nthus entitled  to protection  of the  Rent Control Act after
\nreconstruction. The  old tenant cannot also get into the new
\nbuilding  as  of  right.  This\tdiscrimination\tagainst\t the
\ntenants in  Tamil Nadu\tis invidious and violates Article 14
\nof the\tConstitution. Secondly,\t it was submitted that if in
\ncase of repairs which also dislodges the tenants for limited
\nperiod, the  tenants have  a right  to get into the premises
\nafter  repairs\t under\tthe  Tamil  Nadu  Rent\tAct,  it  is
\nunreasonable that  tenants should not have the same right in
\ncase of\t reconstruction. It was urged that once the building
\nis ready for occupation it should make no difference whether
\nthe readiness is after repairs or after construction. It was
\nurged that  in both  cases the\ttenants go  out\t during\t the
\nperiod of  building work,  and they should equally come back
\ninto the  building after  repairs or  reconstruction. It was
\nsubmitted  on  this  ground  also  that\t not  enjoining\t re-
\ninduction of  the evicted  tenant  after  reconstruction  is
\ndiscriminatory and  unconstitutional. The  classification of
\nbuildings  reconstructed   differently\tfrom  the  buildings
\nrepaired is  not valid,\t as it has no relation to the object
\nor purpose  of the  Act. Furthermore,  that all\t the tenants
\nbelong\tto   one  class\t  and  they  could  not\t be  treated
\ndifferently. On\t this aspect  it was  further submitted that
\nthe provisions\tof re-induction in most of the Rent Acts re-
\npresented the standard of reasonableness in the landlord and
\nthe  tenant   law  and\t the  philosophy   of  Rent  Control
\nLegislation.  It  re-presented\tthe  national  consensus  of
\nreasonable  standard.\tTherefore,   any   provision   which
\naccording to  learned counsel  appearing for  the  different
\nparties in  the writ  petitions, was  in variance  with that
\nstandard was  unreasonable and\tas such violative of Article
\n14 of  the Constitution.  In aid  of this submission various
\ncontentions were  urged. We  are, however,  unable to accept
\nthis submission.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned Attorney  General appearing for the respondents
\nsubmitted before  us that  the\tmain  provision\t of  section
\n14(1)(b) enables  a landlord  to make  an application to the
\nRent Controller and the Rent Controller, if he was satisfied
\nthat the building was bona fide required by the landlord for
\nthe immediate  purpose of  demolishing it for the purpose of
\nerecting a  new building  on the site of the building sought
\nto be demolished might pass an order directing the tenant to
\ndeliver
\n12<\/span>
\npossession  of\t the  building\tto  the\t landlord  before  a
\nspecified date.\t In the case of an application under section
\n14(1)(a) of  the  Tamil\t Nadu  Rent  Act  namely  bona\tfide
\nrequirement for\t carrying out  repairs it  cannot be carried
\nout without the building being vacated and it has to be done
\nwithin three  months to\t enable the  tenant to re-occupy the
\nbuilding. It  has further  to be  borne in  mind that in the
\ncase of\t demolition and re-construction, the landlord has to
\nundertake that\tthe work of demolishing any material portion
\nof the\tbuilding shall be substantially commenced by him not
\nlater than one month and the entire demolition work shall be
\ncompleted before the expiry of three months from the date he
\nrecovers possession  of the  entire building.  See  in\tthis
\nconnection the provisions of section 16 of the said Act. The
\ndemolition  has\t therefore  to\tbe  completed  within  three
\nmonths. In  the case  of massive  buildings  demolition\t can
\novertake six  months or\t even a year and hence the provision
\nthat for  reasons to  be recorded in writing, the Controller
\nmay allow such further period.\n<\/p>\n
     It has  further to\t be borne  in mind  that after\tsuch
\ndemolition the re-construction of a new building on the same
\nsite is\t bound to  take time  and such time depends upon the
\nnature of the building to be erected and it might take years
\nit was argued. During that period a tenant was bound to have
\nfound some  other suitable alternative accommodation; on the
\nother hand  in the  case of a building for repairs, a tenant
\nmay arrange for temporary accommodation for a few months and
\nreturn\tback   to  the\tbuilding.  Therefore  provision\t for
\nreinduction in\tthe case  of repairs  and absence  of such a
\nprovision in  the case\tof demolition  and reconstruction is
\nquite understandable and rational.\n<\/p>\n
     It has  to be  borne in mind that it is not practicable
\nand would  be anamolous\t to expect a landlord to take back a
\ntenant after  a long  lapse of\ttime during  which time\t the
\ntenant\t must\tnecessarily   have   found   some   suitable
\naccommodation elsewhere.  This is  the true  purpose  behind
\nsection\t 14(1)(b)   read  with\t section  14(2)(b).  In\t the
\naforesaid view\tof the\tmatter, we  are unable to accept the
\nsubmission that\t in providing for re-induction of the tenant
\nin case\t of repairs  and not providing for such re-induction
\nin case\t of reconstruction,  there is  any unreasonable\t and
\nirrational classification without any basis.\n<\/p>\n
     The other submission as noted above was that in most of
\nthe Rent  Acts, there  was provision for re-induction of the
\ntenants\t but   there  was  no  such  provision\tin  case  of
\nreconstruction in  the Tamil  Nadu Rent Act. In The State of
\nMadhya Pradesh\tv. G.C.\t Mandawar,<\/a> [1955]  1 S.C.R.  599,  a
\nConstitution Bench of this Court observed that
\n13<\/span>
\nArticle 14  of\tthe  Constitution  does\t not  authorise\t the
\nstriking down  of a  law of  one State on the ground that in
\ncontrast with a law of another State on the same subject its
\nprovisions are discriminatory. Nor does it contemplate a law
\nof the\tCentre or of the State dealing with similar subjects
\nbeing  held   to  be   unconstitutional\t by   a\t process  of
\ncomparative study  of the  provisions of two enactments. The
\nsource of  authority for  the two  statutes being different,
\nArticle 14 can have no application’ it was observed.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  necessary now  to deal  with the submission that
\nthe section  is unreasonable.  For this,  one has to bear in
\nmind the  public purpose  behind the  legislation. The Tamil
\nNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was passed
\nin 1960.  A similar  enactment which  was in  operation from
\n1949 to\t 1960 did not contain any provision like sections 14
\nto 16  providing for eviction of the tenant on the ground of
\ndemolition and reconstruction.\n<\/p>\n
     In 1949,  however, the  enactment contained a provision
\nempowering the Government to exempt any building or class of
\nbuildings from all or any of the provisions of the Act. When
\nthe landlords  desired to  evict tenants  on the  ground  of
\ndemolition and\tre-construction, they resorted to the remedy
\nof moving  the Government  by an  application for  exemption
\nunder  section\t13  of\tthe  1949  Act.\t The  Government  by
\nnotification  used  to\texempt\tany  building  or  class  of
\nbuildings from\tall or\tany of the provisions of the Act. In
\nthis connection\t reference may be made to the decision in S.
\nKannappa Pillai\t and another  v. B.  Venkatarathnam, (78 Law
\nWeekly 363).  The Government  in that  case when passing the
\norder  of  exemption  used  to\timpose\tcondition  that\t the
\nlandlord should\t complete the  re-construction\twithin\tfour
\nmonths from  the date  on which the premises were vacated by
\nthe tenants  and that  he should  take back  the old tenants
\ninto the  reconstructed building at the rate demanded by the
\nlandlord subject  to the  fixation of fair rent. However, in
\nview  of   the\ttenants’   conduct  in\t resorting  to\twrit
\nproceedings challenging the order of exemption and in filing
\nsuits and  having delayed  the\tprocess\t of  demolition\t and
\nreconstruction, the  Court in  the  exercise  of  discretion
\nrefused to  extend the\tbenefit of  the condition  as to re-
\ninduction in  favour of\t the tenants. The further remedy was
\nby writ proceedings before the High Court by the landlord or
\nthe tenant who felt aggrieved as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  submitted on  behalf of  the respondents by the
\nlearned Attorney General that the Legislature in view of the
\nexperience gained  from 1949  to 1960 enacted sections 14 to
\n16 of the Act and which were introduced in the Act of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
     It was  urged  that  the  1960  Act  had  improved\t the
\nposition. It  had provided  as a  ground of  eviction of the
\ntenant the  requirement of  the landlord  for demolition and
\nre-construction of  the building  leaving it  to a  judicial
\nauthority viz. Rent Controller to decide the matter with one
\nstatutory right of appeal and a further right of revision to
\nthe District  Court or the High Court as the case may be. It
\nwas on this ground urged that leaving the matter to judicial
\nadjudication as\t to the\t ground for  eviction, it  cannot be
\nheld to be arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust. This point has
\nto be  judged keeping in view the main purpose of the Act in
\nquestion and the relevant submissions on this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t may   be  borne   in  mind  that  historically\t the
\nconstitutionality of  section 13  of the  Act  of  1949\t was
\nupheld on  the touchstone  of Article  14 both by the Madras
\nHigh Court  and on appeal by this Court in P.J. Irani v. The
\nState of  Madras,<\/a> [1962]  2 S.C.R.  169. It  was  held\tthat
\nsection 13 of the Act did not violate Article 14 and was not
\nunconstitutional. Enough guidance, according to the judgment
\nof the\tmajority of  learned judges,  was  afforded  by\t the
\npreamble and  the operative  provisions of  the Act  for the
\nexercise  of   the  discretionary   power  vested   in\t the
\ngovernment. It\twas observed that the power under section 13
\nof the Act was to be exercised in cases where the protection
\ngiven by  the Act  caused great\t hardship to the landlord or
\nwas the\t subject of  abuse by  the tenants.  It was  held by
\nSinha, C.J., Ayyangar and Mudholkar, JJ. that section 13 was
\nultra vires  and void.\tAn order  made under  section 13 was
\nsubject to  judicial review  on the  grounds that (a) it was
\ndiscriminatory, (b)  it was  made on  grounds which were not
\ngermane or  relevant to\t the policy  and purpose of the Act,
\nand (c)\t it was\t made on grounds which were mala fide. While
\nS.K. Das  and A.K.  Sarkar, JJ.\t emphasised that  the  order
\npassed by  the government  under section  13 was a competent
\nand legal  order. All  that the court had to see was whether
\nthe power had been used for any extraneous purpose, i.e. not
\nfor achieving the object for which the power was granted.\n<\/p>\n
     The Act  of 1960 contains a corresponding provision for
\nexemption in  section 29  of the  Act which  corresponds  to
\nsection 13  of the Act of 1949 was also upheld by this Court
\nin S.  Kandaswamy  Chettiar  v.\t State\tof  Tamil  Nadu\t and<\/a>
\nanother, [1985]\t 2 SCR\t398. Dealing  with section 29 of the
\nAct this  Court\t observed  that\t the  rationale\t behind\t the
\nconferral of  such power  to grant  exemptions\tor  to\tmake
\nexceptions  was\t  that\tan  inflexible\tapplication  of\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act might under some circumstances result
\nin unnecessary\thardship entirely  disproportionate  to\t the
\ngood which will result from a literal enforcement of the Act
\nand also  the practical\t impossibility\tof  anticipating  in
\nadvance
\n15<\/span>
\nsuch hardship  to such\texceptional cases.  In the matter of
\nbeneficial legislations also there were bound to be cases in
\nwhich an  inflexible application  of the  provisions of\t the
\nenactment might result in unnecessary and undue hardship not
\ncontemplated  by   the\tlegislature.   The  power  to  grant
\nexemption under\t section 29  of the Act, therefore, has been
\nconferred not  for making any discrimination between tenants
\nand tenants  but to  avoid undue  hardship or  abuse of\t the
\nbeneficial  provisions\t that  might   result  from  uniform
\napplication  of\t such  provisions  to  cases  which  deserve
\ndifferent treatment.  The decision reiterated that the Tamil
\nNadu Rent Act was a piece of beneficial legislation intended
\nto  remedy   the  two  evils  of  rackrenting  (exaction  of
\nexorbitant rents)  and unreasonable  eviction generated by a
\nlarge scale  of influx of population to big cities and urban
\nareas in  the post  Second World  War period  creating acute
\nshortage of  accommodation in  such areas  and the enactment
\navowedly protects  the rights  of tenants  in occupation  of
\nbuildings in  such areas  from\tbeing  charged\tunreasonable
\nrents and from being unreasonably evicted therefrom. In that
\nview of\t the matter it had made a rational classification of
\nbuildings belonging to government and buildings belonging to
\nreligious,  charitable,\t  educational\tand   other   public
\ninstitutions and  the different\t treatment accorded  to such
\nbuildings under section 10(3)(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The scope\tof this\t Act was  discussed by this Court in
\nRaval and  Co. v.  K.C. Ramachandran & Ors.,<\/a> [1974] 2 S.C.R.
\n629, where  the majority  of the  court at  pages 635 to 636
\nobserved:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “All these  show that\t the Madras  Legislature had
\n\t  applied its  mind to\tthe problem  of housing\t and
\n\t  control of rents and provided a scheme of its own.
\n\t  It  did   not\t proceed   on  the  basis  that\t the
\n\t  legislation regarding\t rent control  was only\t for
\n\t  the benefit  of the  tenants. It  wanted it  to be
\n\t  fair both  to the  landlord as well as the tenant.
\n\t  Apparently it\t realised that\tthe pegging  of\t the
\n\t  rents at  the 1940  rates had discouraged building
\n\t  construction activity\t which ultimately  is likely
\n\t  to affect  every body\t and therefore\tin order  to
\n\t  encourage   new    constructions   exempted\tthem
\n\t  altogether from  the provisions of the Act. It did
\n\t  not proceed on the basis that all tenants belonged
\n\t  to the  weaker section of the community and needed
\n\t  protection and  that all landlords belonged to the
\n\t  better off  classes. It confined the protection of
\n\t  the Act  to the  weaker section paying rents below
\n\t  Rs.250. It  is clear,\t therefore, that  the Madras
\n\t  Legislature deliberately  proceeded on  the  basis
\n\t  that fair rent was to be fixed which was
\n16<\/span>
\n\t  to be fair both to the landlords as well as to the
\n\t  tenants  and\tthat  only  the\t poorer\t classes  of
\n\t  tenants needed  protection. The  facile assumption
\n\t  on the  basis of  which an  argument was  advanced
\n\t  before this  Court that all Rent Acts are intended
\n\t  for the protection of tenants and, therefore, this
\n\t  Act also  should be  held to\tbe intended only for
\n\t  the protection  of tenants  breaks down  when\t the
\n\t  provisions of\t the Act are examined in detail. The
\n\t  provision that  both the  tenant as  well  as\t the
\n\t  landlord can\tapply for  fixation of\ta fair\trent
\n\t  would become\tmeaningless if fixation of fair rent
\n\t  can only be downwards from the contracted rent and
\n\t  the contract\trent was  not to  be  increased.  Of
\n\t  course, it  has happened  over the  last few years
\n\t  that rents  have increased  enormously and that is
\n\t  why it is argued on behalf of the tenants that the
\n\t  contract rents  should not be changed. If we could
\n\t  contemplate a situation where rents and prices are
\n\t  coming down this argument will break down. It is a
\n\t  realisation of the fact that prices and rents have
\n\t  enormously increased\tand therefore  if the  rents
\n\t  are pegged  at 1940  rates there  would be  no new
\n\t  construction and  the community  as a\t whole would
\n\t  suffer that  led the\tMadras Legislature to exempt
\n\t  new buildings\t from  the  scope  of  the  Act.  It
\n\t  realised apparently  how dangerous was the feeling
\n\t  that only “fools build houses for wise men to live
\n\t  in”. At  the time  the 1960  Act  was\t passed\t the
\n\t  Madras Legislature  had before it the precedent of
\n\t  the Madras  Cultivating Tenants  (Payment of\tFair
\n\t  Rent) Act, 1956. That Act provides for fixation of
\n\t  fair rent.  It also  provides\t that  the  contract
\n\t  rent,\t if   lower,  will  be\tpayable\t during\t the
\n\t  contract period.  Even if  the  contract  rent  is
\n\t  higher only  the fair\t rent will be payable. After
\n\t  the contract\tperiod is over only the fair rent is
\n\t  payable. The Madras Legislature having this Act in
\n\t  mind still made only the fair rent payable and not
\n\t  the contract rent if it happens to be lower. It is
\n\t  clear, therefore,  that the  fair rent  under\t the
\n\t  present Act  is payable during the contract period
\n\t  as well  as  after  the  expiry  of  the  contract
\n\t  period.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Act  sought to\t restore the  balance in  the  scale
\nwhich is  otherwise weighted in favour of the stronger party
\nwhich had  larger bargaining  power. The  Act  balances\t the
\nscales and  regulates the  rights of  the parties fairly and
\ncannot be construed only in favour of the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
     In Murlidhar  Agarwal and\tanother v. State of U.P. and
\nothers, [1975]\t1 S.C.R. 575 this Court had occasion to deal
\nwith this  matter. In  that case,  powers of  High Court  to
\ninterfere with\trevisional orders passed by State Government
\nunder section  7F of  U.P. Temporary  Control  of  Rent\t and
\nEviction Act,  1947 were  challenged. The  Court was  of the
\nview that  if a\t provision was\tenacted for the benefit of a
\nperson\tor   class  of\tpersons,  there\t was  nothing  which
\nprecluded him or them from contracting to waive the benefit,
\nprovided that  no question of public policy was involved. In
\ndoing so,  the question\t arose what  was the ‘public policy’
\ninvolved in  the said  Rent Act. There can be no doubt about
\nthe policy  of the  law, namely,  the protection of a weaker
\nclass in  the community\t from harassment of frivolous suits.
\nBut the\t question is,  is there\t a public  policy behind  it
\nwhich  precludes  a  tenant  from  waiving  it?\t Mathew,  J.
\nreiterated that\t public policy does not remain static in any
\ngiven community.  It may  vary from generation to generation
\nand even  in the  same generation.  Public policy  would  be
\nalmost useless\tif it were to remain in fixed moulds for all
\ntime. The  Rent Act,  however, balances\t both the sides, the
\nlandlord and the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     The  main\tprovision  of  Section\t14(1)(b)  enables  a
\nlandlord to  make an  application to the Rent Controller and
\nthe Rent Controller, if he is satisfied that the building is
\nbonafide required  by the landlord for the immediate purpose
\nof demolishing it for the purpose of erecting a new building
\non the site of the building sought to be demolished may pass
\nan order  directing the\t tenant to deliver possession of the
\nbuilding to the landlord before a specified date.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 16\t provides  for\tthe  tenant  to\t occupy\t the
\nbuilding if  it is  not demolished in certain contingencies.
\nThe scheme  of the  section was\t very carefully\t analysed in
\nShah Bhojraj  Kuverji  Oil  Mills  and\tGinning\t Factory  v.
\nSubbash Chandra Yograj Sinha,<\/a> [1962] 2 S.C.R. 159.\n<\/p>\n
     In Metalware  and Co.  etc. v. Bansilal Sharma and Ors.
\netc., [1979]  3 S.C.R.\t1107 this  Court emphasised that the
\nphrase used in section 14(1)(b) of the Act was “the building
\nwas bona  fide required\t by the\t landlord” for the immediate
\npurpose\t of  demolition\t and  reconstruction  and  the\tsame
\nclearly\t referred  to  the  bona  fide\trequirement  of\t the
\nlandlord. This\tCourt emphasised  that\tthe  requirement  in
\nterms was  not\tthat  the  building  should  need  immediate
\ndemolition and reconstruction. The state or condition of the
\nbuilding and  the extent  to which  it could  stand  without
\nimmediate demolition and reconstruction in
\n18<\/span>
\nfuture would  not  be  a  totally  irrelevant  factor  while
\ndetermining “the  bona fide  requirement of  the  landlord.”
\nThis Court  emphasised that if the Rent Controller had to be
\nsatisfied about\t the bona  fide requirement  of the landlord
\nwhich meant genuineness of his claim in that behalf the Rent
\nController  would   have  to   take  into  account  all\t the
\nsurrounding circumstances  including not  merely the factors
\nof the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds
\nto undertake  the project  and steps  taken by\thim in\tthat
\nregard but  also the existing condition of the building, its
\nage and\t situation and possibility or otherwise of its being
\nput to a more profitable use after reconstruction. All these
\nfactors being  relevant must  enter the\t verdict of the Rent
\nController on  the question  of the bona fide requirement of
\nthe  landlord  under  section  14(1)(b).  The  fact  that  a
\nlandlord being\tpossessed of  sufficient means\tto undertake
\nthe project of demolition and reconstruction by itself might
\nnot be\tsufficient to establish his bona fide requirement if
\nthe building  happened to be a very recent construction in a
\nperfectly sound\t condition and\tits situation  might prevent
\nits being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction.
\nThe Rent  Controller has  thus\tto  take  into\taccount\t the
\ntotality of the circumstances and the factors referred to in
\nthe judgment  by lesser\t or greater  significance  depending
\nupon whether  in the scheme of the concerned enactment there
\nis or  there is\t not a\tprovision for  re-induction  of\t the
\nevicted tenant into the new construction. Reference was made
\nto the\tdecision of  this Court\t in Neta  Ram v.  Jiwan Lal,<\/a>
\n[1962] Suppl.  2 S.C.R. 623. There must be bona fide need of
\nthe landlord on all the conditions required to be fulfilled.
\nThat being  the scheme of the section, it cannot be said, in
\nour opinion,  that the\tsection was  arbitrary and excessive
\npowers were given to the landlords. Absence of provision for
\nre-induction does  not ipso facto make the provisions of the
\nAct unfair or make the Act self defeating.\n<\/p>\n
     It has  been borne\t in mind  that the provisions of the
\nAct imposed  restrictions on  the landlord’s right under the
\ncommon law  or the  Transfer of\t Property Act  to evict\t the
\ntenant after  termination of  his tenancy.  The rationale of
\nthese restrictions  on the  landlord’s rights  is the  acute
\nshortage of  accommodation and\tthe consequent\tneed to give
\nprotection to the tenants against unrestricted eviction. The
\nnature, the  form and  the extent  of the restrictions to be
\nimposed on the landlord’s right and the consequent extent of
\nprotection to  be given\t to  the  tenants  is  a  matter  of
\nlegislative policy  and judgment.  It is inevitably bound to
\nvary from  one State  to  another  depending  on  local\t and
\npeculiar  conditions   prevailing  in\tthe  State  and\t the
\nindividual State’s appreciation of the needs and problems of
\nits people. When we are confronted with
\n19<\/span>
\nthe problem  of a legislation being violative of Article 14,
\nwe are\tnot concerned with the wisdom or lack of legislative
\nenactment but  we are  concerned with  the illegality of the
\nlegislation. There  may be  more than  one  view  about\t the
\nappropriateness\t or   effectiveness   or   extent   of\t the
\nrestrictions. There may be also more than one view about the
\nrelaxation of  the restrictions\t on the\t landlord’s right of
\neviction. This fact is reflected in the different provisions
\nmade in\t different Acts\t about the grounds for eviction. For
\nexample, in case of Assam, Meghalaya, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi,
\nHaryana, Orissa, Tripura, East Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil
\nNadu, Kerala,  Mysore, Himachal\t Pradesh and Pondicherry, no
\nparticular duration for arrears of rent is prescribed, which
\nwould entitle a landlord to maintain an action for ejectment
\nof his\ttenant. However,  in other cases a certain period is
\nprescribed. For\t instance, two\tmonths in Bihar, West Bengal
\nand Jammu and Kashmir, three months in Goa and Tripura, four
\nmonths in Uttar Pradesh, six months in Bombay and Rajasthan.
\nAgain some  Rent Acts  require that  before  an\t action\t for
\nejectment on  the ground  of arrears is instituted, a notice
\ndemanding rent\tshould be  served on the tenant-for example-
\nBombay, Delhi,\tKerala, Tripura,  Jammu and  Kashmir, Madhya
\nPradesh and  U.P. Rent\tActs. In  such cases  the tenant  is
\ngiven one chance to pay up the arrears. Again different Rent
\nActs provide  different facts and circumstances on the basis
\nof which  premises could  be recovered on the ground of bona
\nfide  personal\t requirement.  Generally   the\t bona\tfide
\nrequirement  extends   both  to\t  residential  as   well  as
\ncommercial premises.  However, the  Delhi Rent\tControl\t Act
\nrestricts the  right on account of the bona fide need of the
\nlandlord’s right  to premises  let for residential use only.
\nFurther, Bihar,\t Bombay, Goa,  Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka,
\nTamil Nadu,  U.P. and  West Bengal  Rent  Acts\tprovide\t for
\npartial eviction.  But there  is no  such provision  in\t the
\nother Acts.  It is  obvious from the above that there can be
\nno  fixed  and\tinflexible  criteria  or  grounds  governing
\nimposition of  restrictions on\tthe landlord’s\tright or for
\nrelaxation  of\t those\trestrictions   in   certain   cases.
\nUltimately  it\t is  a\tmatter\tof  legislative\t policy\t and
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
     Courts  are   not\tconcerned   with  the\tunwisdom  of
\nlegislation. “In short, unconstitutionality and not unwisdom
\nof a  legislation is  the narrow  area of judicial review.”.
\nSee in\tthis connection the observations of Krishna Iyer, J.
\nin Murthy  Match Works, etc. etc. v. The Asstt. Collector of
\nCentral Excise,\t etc.,\t[1974]\t3  S.C.R.  121.\t This  Court
\napproved the  above passage  from the American Jurisprudence
\nand emphasised\tthat in\t a classification  for\tgovernmental
\npurposes there\tcannot be an exact exclusion or inclusion of
\npersons and things. It is
\n20<\/span>
\nimportant to  bear in  mind the constitutional command for a
\nstate to  afford equal protection of the law sets a goal not
\nattainable by  the invention  and application  of a  precise
\nformula. Therefore,  a large  latitude\tis  allowed  to\t the
\nStates for  classification upon\t any reasonable\t basis.\t See
\nalso in this connection the observations of this Court in Re
\nThe Special  Courts Bill,  1978, [1979]\t 2 S.C.R.  476 where
\nChandrachud, C.J.speaking for the Court at pages 534to537 of
\nthe report laid down the propositions guiding Article 14 and
\nemphasised that\t the classification  need not be constituted
\nby an  exact or\t scientific exclusion nor insist on delusive
\nexactness or  apply doctrinaire\t tests for  determining\t the
\nvalidity of classification in any given case. Classification
\ntherefore, is  justified if it is not palpably arbitrary. We
\nalso in\t view of  the different provisions we have discussed
\nbear in\t mind the fact that there is no such consensus among
\nthe different  States about  the right\tof  re-induction  of
\ntenant in  case of eviction required for demolition. It will
\ndepend on the particular State and, appreciation of the need
\nand problem  at a  particular point  of time  by that  State
\nconcerned. The purpose underlying section 14(1)(b) read with
\nsection 16(2)  of the  Tamil Nadu  Rent Act  is to remove or
\nmitigate the  disinclination on\t the part  of  landlords  to
\nexpend moneys  for demolition  of dilapidated  buildings and
\nreconstruct new buildings in their places. It is a matter of
\nwhich judicial\tnotice can be taken that the return from old
\nand dilapidated\t buildings is  very meagre  and\t in  several
\ncases such buildings prove uneconomic for the landlords with
\nthe result  that the  condition of the building deteriorates
\nand there  are even  collapses of  such buildings. It is for
\nthis purpose  that the landlord is given by section 14(1)(b)
\nread with  section 16  an incentive in the form of exemption
\nfrom  the   provisions\tof   the  Rent\tAct  in\t respect  of
\nreconstructed building for the limited and short duration of
\nfive years.  The policy\t under section\t14(1)(b)  read\twith
\nsection 16  is not  in essence\tdifferent  from\t the  policy
\nadopted by  different  States  of  giving  exemption  for  a
\nlimited\t duration  to  newly  constructed  buildings.  These
\nprovisions, namely,  exemption of  new\tbuildings  from\t the
\nprovisions of the Rent Act for a period of five years or ten
\nyears  has  been  upheld  as  constitutional.  See  in\tthis
\nconnection the\tobservations of\t this Court  in the  case of
\nPunjab Tin  Supply Co.,\t Chandigarh &  Ors. v.\tThe  Central
\nGovt. &\t Ors.,<\/a> [1984]  1 SCC  206 at  pages 216\t and 217 and
\nMohinder Kumar\tv. State of Haryana and Anr,<\/a> [1985] 4 S.C.C.
\n221 at\tpages 226-227. There the Court emphasised that it is
\nentirely for the Legislature to decide whether any measures,
\nand if so, what measures are to be adopted for remedying the
\nsituation and  for ameliorating the hardship of tenants. The
\nLegislature may\t very well  come to  a conclusion that it is
\nthe shortage  of buildings which has resulted in scarcity of
\naccommodation
\n21<\/span>
\nand  has   created  a\tsituation  where   the\tdemand\t for
\naccommodation is far in excess of the requisite supply, and,
\nit is  because of  such acute  scarcity of accommodation the
\nlandlords are  in a position to exploit the situation to the
\nserious detriment  of the  tenants. The\t Court\tobserved  at
\npages 226to227 of the report as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “The Legislature\t in its\t wisdom may properly
\n\t  consider that\t in effecting  an improvement of the
\n\t  situation and\t for mitigating\t the hardship of the
\n\t  tenanted class  caused mainly\t due to\t shortage of
\n\t  buildings,  it   will\t be   proper  to   encourage
\n\t  construction of  new buildings, as construction of
\n\t  new buildings\t will  provide\tmore  accommodation,
\n\t  easing the  situation to  a large extent, and will
\n\t  ultimately result in benefiting the tenants. As in
\n\t  view of  the rigours\tof Rent Control Legislation,
\n\t  persons with\tmeans may  not be inclined to invest
\n\t  in construction  of new houses, the Legislature to
\n\t  attract investment  in construction  of new houses
\n\t  may consider it reasonable to provide for adequate
\n\t  incentives so\t that new constructions may come up.
\n\t  It is\t an elementary law of economics that anybody
\n\t  who wants  to invest his money in any venture will
\n\t  expect a  fair return\t on the\t investment made. As
\n\t  acute scarcity  of accommodation  is to  an extent
\n\t  responsible for the landlord and tenant problem, a
\n\t  measure adopted  by the Legislature for seeking to
\n\t  meet the situation by encouraging the construction
\n\t  of new buildings for the purpose of mitigating the
\n\t  hardship of  tenants must  be considered  to be  a
\n\t  step in  the right  direction. The  provision\t for
\n\t  exemption from  the operation\t of the Rent Control
\n\t  Legislation by  way of  incentive to\tpersons with
\n\t  means to  construct new  houses has  been made  in
\n\t  Section 1(3)\tof the Act by the Legislature in the
\n\t  legitimate hope that construction of new buildings
\n\t  will\tultimately   result  in\t mitigation  of\t the
\n\t  hardship of  the tenants.  Such  incentive  has  a
\n\t  clear nexus  with the\t object to  be achieved\t and
\n\t  cannot  be   considered  to\tbe  unreasonable  or
\n\t  arbitrary. Any  such\tincentive  offered  for\t the
\n\t  purpose of  construction of new buildings with the
\n\t  object of  easing the\t situation  of\tscarcity  of
\n\t  accommodation for  ameliorating the  conditions of
\n\t  the tenants,\tcannot be  said to  be unreasonable,
\n\t  provided the nature and character of the incentive
\n\t  and the  measure  of\texemption  allowed  are\t not
\n\t  otherwise   unreasonable    and   arbitrary.\t The
\n\t  exemption to\tbe allowed  must be for a reasonable
\n\t  and  a   definite  period.  An  exemption  for  an
\n\t  indefinite period or a
\n22<\/span>
\n\t  period which in the facts and circumstances of any
\n\t  particular case  may be  considered to  be  unduly
\n\t  long, may  be held  to be arbitrary. The exemption
\n\t  must necessarily  be effective  from a  particular
\n\t  date and  must be with the object of promoting new
\n\t  constructions. With  the commencement\t of the Act,
\n\t  the provisions  of  the  Rent\t Act  with  all\t the
\n\t  restrictions\t and   rigours\t become\t  effective.
\n\t  Buildings which  have been  constructed before the
\n\t  commencement of the Act were already there and the
\n\t  question of  any kind\t of impetus  or incentive to
\n\t  such buildings  does not  arise. The\tLegislature,
\n\t  therefore, very  appropriately allowed the benefit
\n\t  of   the   exemption\t to   the   buildings,\t the
\n\t  construction of  which commenced  or was completed
\n\t  on or\t after the  commencement of  the  Act.\tThis
\n\t  exemption in\trespect of buildings coming up or to
\n\t  come up  on or  after the  date of commencement of
\n\t  the  Act   is\t likely\t to  serve  the\t purpose  of
\n\t  encouraging new buildings to be constructed. There
\n\t  is therefore\tnothing arbitrary or unreasonable in
\n\t  fixing the  date of  commencement of\tthe Act from
\n\t  which the exemption is to be operative.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 14(1)(b) has sufficient inbuilt guidelines. The
\nrequirements to\t be satisfied before initiating action under
\nthis provision\thave been judicially laid down by the Madras
\nHigh Court  by Anantanarayanan, J. as he then was, in Mehsin
\nBhai v.\t Hale and company, G. T. Madras, [1964] 2 Madras Law
\nJournal 147.  Anantanarayanan, J.  observed at\tpage 147  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  ”    What the\t section really required is that the
\n\t  landlord must\t satisfy the Court that the building
\n\t  was bona  fide required  by him, for the immediate
\n\t  purpose of  demolition. I am totally unable to see
\n\t  how the  present state  of the  building, and\t the
\n\t  extent to  which it  could stand without immediate
\n\t  demolition and  reconstruction, in the future, are
\n\t  not relevant\tconsiderations in assessing the bona
\n\t  fides of  the landlord. On the one hand, landlords
\n\t  may bona fide require such buildings, particularly
\n\t  old  buildings,   in\ttheir\town  interest,\t for
\n\t  demolition and  reconstruction. On the other hand,
\n\t  it is equally possible that the mere fact that the
\n\t  building is  old, is\ttaken advantage\t of  by\t the
\n\t  landlord to  put forward  such  pretext  his\treal
\n\t  object being\tulterior, and  not bona fide for the
\n\t  purpose of  reconstruction.  The  Courts  have  to
\n\t  apply several\t criteria, and\tto  judge  upon\t the
\n\t  totality
\n23<\/span>
\n\t  of the  facts. But  the Courts  cannot exclude the
\n\t  possibility that  the ancient\t or  relatively\t old
\n\t  character of\tthe building  which may nevertheless
\n\t  be in\t quite a  good and sound condition, is being
\n\t  taken advantage  of by a landlord in order to make
\n\t  such an  application\twith  an  ulterior  purpose,
\n\t  which purpose\t might be,  for instance,  to obtain
\n\t  far more advantageous terms of rent in the future.
\n\t  What the  section really  contemplates is  a\tbona
\n\t  fide requirement; that necessarily implied that it
\n\t  is in\t the interests\tof the\tlandlord to demolish
\n\t  and reconstruct  the building,  and that  the fact
\n\t  that the  building is\t old is not merely a pretext
\n\t  for advancing\t the application, with the object of
\n\t  evicting  the\t tenant,  and  of  obtaining  higher
\n\t  rentals.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This Court\t also emphasised this aspect in the decision
\nof Metalware  & Co. etc. v. Bansilal Sharma and others etc.,
\n[1979] 3 S.C.R. 1107 at pages 1117-1118.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  therefore unable  to accept the submission that
\nabsence\t of   the  right   of  induction   of\ttenants\t  in
\nreconstructed premises\tis either arbitrary or unreasonable.
\nThe submission that section 16(2) which provides that when a
\nbuilding is  totally demolished\t and on which a new building
\nis erected  shall be  exempt from  all the provisions of the
\nAct for a period of five years is bad is also unsustainable.
\nSee in\tthis connection\t the observations  of this  Court in
\nM\/s. Punjab  Tin Supply\t Co., Chandigarh  etc. etc.  v.\t The
\nCentral Government and others, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 428 and Motor
\nGeneral Traders\t and another  etc. etc.\t v. State  of Andhra
\nPradesh and  others etc.  etc., [1984]\t1 S.C.R. 594 at page\n<\/p>\n
605. It\t was submitted\tthat the  fact that  in these  cases
\nexemption was  after the  first construction of the building
\nand not\t after demolition and re-construction but that would
\nnot make  any difference  to the  principle applicable.\t The
\nprinciple underlying  such exemption  for a  period of\tfive
\nyears is  not discriminatory  against  tenants,\t nor  is  it
\nagainst the  policy  of\t the  Act.  It\tonly  serves  as  an
\nincentive to the landlord for creation of additional housing
\naccommodation to  meet the growing needs of persons who have
\nno accommodation  to reside or to carry on business. It does
\nnot create  a class  of landlords  who will  forever be kept
\noutside the  scope of  the Act as the provision balances the
\ninterests of  the landlords  on the one hand and the tenants
\non the other in a reasonable way. This Court in Atam Prakash
\nv. State  of Haryana  and others<\/a>,  [1986] 2  S.C.C. 249 also
\njudged the  rules of  classification  in  dealing  with\t the
\nPunjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.\n<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
     This Court\t emphasised in\tPanchamal Narayan  Shenoy v.
\nBasthi Venkatesha  Shenoy,<\/a>  [1970]  3  S.C.R.  734  that  in
\nconsidering the reasonable and bona fide requirements of the
\nlandlord under\tthis clause,  the desire  of the landlord to
\nput the\t property to  a more profitable use after demolition
\nand reconstruction  is also  a factor that may be taken into
\naccount in  favour of  the landlord.  It was also emphasised
\nthat it\t was not  necessary  that  the\tlandlord  should  go
\nfurther and  establish under  this clause that the condition
\nof  the\t  building  is\t such  that  it\t requires  immediate
\ndemolition.\n<\/p>\n
     Our attention  was drawn  to  certain  observations  of
\nChatterjee, J.\tof the Calcutta High Court in Jiwanlal & Co.
\nand others v. Manot and Co., Ltd., (64 Calcutta Weekly Notes
\n932 at\tpage 937)  that where the landlord had established a
\ncase of\t building and  rebuilding  the\ttenants\t undoubtedly
\nwould suffer on ejectment. The learned Judge was of the view
\nthat though  the landlords  required the  premises  for\t the
\npurpose of  building and  rebuilding, it  was not  desirable
\nthat the  tenants  should  be  ejected.\t The  learned  Judge
\nemphasised that\t the purpose  of the  Act was to protect the
\ntenants as  long as  possible and to eject them only when it
\nwas not otherwise possible. The landlords did not require it
\nfor their  own use  and occupation.  They wanted  it for the
\nadvantage of  increased accommodation. The learned Judge was
\nof the\tview that  if the tenants were ejected, then for the
\ntime being,  far from  the problem  being solved,  it  would
\ncreate\tdifficulties   for  the\t  public  as   well  as\t for
\nthemselves.  We\t  are,\thowever,   unable  to\taccept\tthis
\nprinciple. It is true that the Act must be so construed that
\nit harmonises  the rights  of the  landlords and at the same
\ntime protects  the tenants  and also serves best the purpose
\nof the\tAct and\t one of\t the purposes of the Act is to solve
\nthe acute  shortage of\taccommodation by  making a  rational
\nbasis for  eviction and to encourage building and rebuilding
\nwhich  is   at\tthe  root  of  all  causes  of\tshortage  of
\naccommodation.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  held by  a learned\t single Judge  of the Madras
\nHigh Court  (one of  us-Natarajan J.) in M\/s. Patel Roadways
\nPrivate Limited,  Madras v.  State of Tamil Nadu and others<\/a>,
\n(A.I.R. 1985  Madras 119)  that the  provisions of the Tamil
\nNadu Act  were not  violative  of  Article  14\tand  Article
\n19(1)(f) of  the Act.  But that\t was in a slightly different
\ncontext.\n<\/p>\n
     Post war  migration of  human beings  en bloc  place to
\nplace, the  partition of  the country  and uprooting  of the
\npeople from  their hearth and home, explosion of population,
\nare the\t various vital\tfactors leading to the present acute
\nshortage of housing. It has to be borne in mind
\n25<\/span>
\nthat the  urge for land and yearning for hearth and home are
\nas perennial  emotions\tas  hunger  and\t sex  are,  as\tPoet
\nRabindranath would  say meaning\t thereby, it is not wealth-I
\nseek, it  is not  fame that  I want,  I\t crave\tfor  a\thome
\nexpressing the\teternal yearning  of all  living beings\t for
\nhabitat.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  common knowledge that there is acute shortage of
\nhousing, various  factors have led to this problem. The laws
\nrelating to  letting and of landlord and tenant in different
\nStates have  from different  States’ angles tried to grapple
\nthe problem.  Yet in  view of  the magnitude of the problem,
\nthe problem  has become insoluble and the litigations abound
\nand the\t people suffer.\t More  houses  must,  therefore,  be
\nbuilt, more accommodation and more spaces made available for
\nthe people  to live in. The laws of landlord and tenant must
\nbe made\t rational, humane,  certain  and  capable  of  being
\nquickly implemented. Those landlords who are having premises
\nin their  control should  be induced  and encouraged to part
\nwith available\taccommodation for limited periods on certain
\nsafeguards which  will strictly\t ensure their  recovery when
\nwanted. Men with money should be given proper and meaningful
\nincentives as  in some\tEuropean countries  to build houses,
\ntax holidays  for new  houses can be encouraged. The tenants
\nshould also  be given  protection and  security and  certain
\namount of  reasonableness in  the rent. Escalation of prices
\nin the\turban properties, land, materials and houses must be
\nrationally checked.  This  country  very  vitally  and\tvery
\nurgently requires  a National  Housing Policy  if we want to
\nprevent a  major breakdown  of law  and\t order\tand  gradual
\ndisillusionment of  people. After  all shelter is one of our
\nfundamental rights. New rational housing policy must attract
\nnew buildings,\tencourage new  buildings, make available new
\nspaces, rationalise  the rent  structure and rationalise the
\nrent provisions\t and  bring  certain  amount  of  uniformity
\nthough leaving\tscope for  sufficient flexibility  among the
\nStates to  adjust such\tlegislation according  to its needs.
\nThis Court and the High Court should also be relieved of the
\nheavy burdens  of this\trent litigations.  Tier\t of  appeals
\nshould be  curtailed. Laws  must  be  simple,  rational\t and
\nclear. Tenants\tare in\tall cases  not the  weaker sections.
\nThere are  those who  are weak\tboth among  the landlords as
\nwell as\t the tenants.  Litigations must come to end quickly.
\nSuch new  Housing Policy  must comprehend  the\tpresent\t and
\nanticipate the\tfuture. The idea of a National Rent Tribunal
\non an  All India  basis with  quicker  procedure  should  be
\nexamined. This\thas become  an urgent  imperative of today’s
\nrevolution. A  fast changing  society  cannot  operate\twith
\nunchanging law and preconceived judicial attitude.\n<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
     For the reasons aforesaid the contentions urged in writ
\npetitions fail\tand are\t accordingly dismissed. In the facts
\nand circumstances  of the  case there will be no order as to
\ncosts. Interim orders if any are vacated.\n<\/p>\n
S.L.\t\t\t\t\t Petition dismissed.\n27<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2117, 1988 SCR (1) 1 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: PRABHAKARAN NAIR, ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/09\/1987 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPrabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-23T04:53:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"54 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-23T04:53:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987\"},\"wordCount\":8668,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987\",\"name\":\"Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-23T04:53:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-23T04:53:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"54 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987","datePublished":"1987-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-23T04:53:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987"},"wordCount":8668,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987","name":"Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-23T04:53:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakaran-nair-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-ors-on-3-september-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prabhakaran Nair, Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 September, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231727","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231727\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}