{"id":263479,"date":"1986-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986"},"modified":"2015-07-31T08:20:41","modified_gmt":"2015-07-31T02:50:41","slug":"rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986","title":{"rendered":"Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 1444, 1986 SCR (2) 596<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRATTAN ARYA ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/04\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1986 AIR 1444\t\t  1986 SCR  (2) 596\n 1986 SCC  (3) 385\t  1986 SCALE  (1)993\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1987 SC2117\t (8)\n RF\t    1991 SC1094\t (3,10)\n\n\nACT:\n     Tamil Nadu\t Buildings (Lease  and\tRent  Control)\tAct,\n1960, s.  30(ii) - Provisions excepting from the application\nof the\tAct residential\t buildings fetching  rent  exceeding\nfour hundred rupees - Whether violative of Article 14<\/a> of the\nConstitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Section 30(ii)  of the  Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and\nRent Control) Act, 1960 excepted from the application of the\nAct residential\t buildings which fetched a rent of more than\nrupees two  hundred and\t fifty per month and non-residential\nbuildings which\t fetched a  rent of  more than\trupees\tfour\nhundred per  month. This  provision was\t amended in  1961 to\nmake the  exception applicable\tto either a building or part\nthereof. In  1964, the\tprovision relating  to the exception\nmade in\t the case  of non-residential  buildings was deleted\nwith  the  result  that\t tenants  of  these  buildings\twere\nentitled to  the protection afforded by the Act irrespective\nof the rent paid by them. The section was further amended by\nTamil Nadu  Act<\/a> 23 of 1973 by substituting the figure rupees\nfour hundred  for the figure of rupees two hundred and fifty\nin respect of residential buildings or part thereof.\n     The petitioners  in their writ petitions challenged the\nvires of this provisions, contending that though the Act was\ndesigned to  apply generally  to all  residential  and\tnon-\nresidential  buildings,\t  residential  buildings   or  parts\nthereof fetching  a rent  of more  than rupees\tfour hundred\nwere singled  out and taken out of the purview of the Act by\ns. 30(ii)  arbitrarily and without any reason. The petitions\nwere contested\tby the\tState Government contending in their\ncounter-affidavit   to\t the   writ   petitions\t  that\t the\nclassification\tof  the\t protected  buildings  and  exempted\nbuildings on  the basis\t of the\t rent was  a reasonable one,\nconsistent  with   the\tobject\t of  the  Act  and  was\t not\ndiscriminatory.\n     Allowing the writ petitions, the Court,\n597\n^\n     HELD :  1. Section\t 30(ii) of  the Tamil Nadu Buildings\n(Lease and  Rent Control) Act, 1960 has to be sturck down as\nviolative  of\tArt.  14<\/a>   of  the  Constitution  since\t the\ndistinction made  by it\t between the tenant of a residential\nbuilding and  the tenant  of a\tnon-residential building and\nthat based  on rent  paid by  the respective  tenants has no\nreasonable nexus  to the object of the Act which is aimed at\nregulating the\tconditions of tenancy, controlling the rents\nand preventing\tunreasonable  eviction\tof  tenants  of\t all\nresidential and\t nonresidential buildings.  [606 D; 602 G-H;\n603 A]\n     To say  that a  non-residential building  is  different\nfrom a\tresidential building  is merely to say what is self-\nevident and  means nothing.  It has  not been  shown in\t the\ninstant case  that the\ttenants of non-residential buildings\nare in\ta disadvantageous  position as compared with tenants\nof residential\tbuildings and,\ttherefore, they need greater\nprotection. Tenants  of both kinds of buildings equally need\nthe protection of the beneficient provision of the Act. [604\nC-D]\n     2.\t By   one  stroke  s.  30(ii)<\/a>  denies  the  benefits\nconferred  by\tthe  Act   on  all  tenants  to\t tenants  of\nresidential buildings  fetching a  rent in  excess  of\tfour\nhundred\t rupees.  While\t the  tenant  of  a  non-residential\nbuilding is  protected, whether\t the rent  is rupees  fifty,\nfive hundred  or five  thousand per  month, a  tenant  of  a\nresidential building  is protected  if the  rent  is  rupees\nfifty, but  not if  it is  five hundred or five thousand per\nmonth. It  cannot be  said that\t the tenant of a residential\nbuilding paying\t a rent\t of rupees  five hundred  is able to\nprotect himself\t better than the tenant of a non-residential\nbuilding paying a rent of rupees five thousand per month, or\nthat the tenant of a residential building who pays a rent of\nrupees five  hundred  per  month  is  not  in  need  of\t any\nstatutory protection. [602 E-G]\n     3.\t It  cannot  be\t pretended  that  the  exclusion  of\ntenants, who  pay higher  rent, from  the purview of the Act\nwill  help  to\tprotect\t tenants  belonging  to\t the  weaker\nsections of  the community.  It is  one thing  to  say\tthat\ntenants belonging  to the weaker sections of the people need\nprotection, and\t an altogether\tdifferent thing\t to say that\ndenial of  protection to  tenants paying  higher rents\twill\nprotect the  weaker sections  of the society. Inconsistently\nenough the tenants of\n598\nnon-residential buildings, who are in a position to pay much\nhigher\trents\tthan  those  in\t occupation  of\t residential\nbuildings can  ever pay,  are  afforded\t protection  by\t the\nimpugned provision while the latter paying rent in excess of\nrupees four hundred are left high and dry. [604 F-H; 605 A]\n     Raval &  Co. v.  Ramachandran<\/a>,  [1974]  2\tS.C.R.\t629,\ndistinguished.\n     4.\t A  provision  which  was  perfectly  valid  at\t the\ncommencement of\t the Act  could in  course  of\ttime  become\ndiscriminatory and  liable to  challenge on  the  ground  of\nunconstitutionality and\t struck down on that basis. Whatever\njurisidiction there  might have\t been in 1973 when s. 30(ii)<\/a>\nwas amended  by imposing a ceiling of rupees four hundred on\nrent payable  by tenants of residential buildings to entitle\nthem to\t seek the protection of the Act, the passage of time\nhas made the ceiling utterly unreal. There has been enormous\nmultifold  increase   of  rents\t  throughout  the   country,\nparticularly in urban areas. It is common knowledge that the\naccommodation which  one could have possibly for rupees four\nhundred per  month in  1973 will  today cost  at least\tfive\ntimes more. In these days of universal day-to-day escalation\nof rentals any ceiling such as that imposed by s. 30(ii)<\/a> can\nonly be\t considered to be totally artificial and irrelevant.\n[605 A-D]\n     Motor General  Traders  v.\t State\tof  Andhra  Pradesh<\/a>,\n[1984] 1 S.C.C. 222, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  :  Writ  Petition  (Civil)\tNos.
\n13732\/83, 5226\/82, 754\/83, 1117, 13999, 14101, 17189, 11226,
\nand 12783\/85.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under Article 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India.)
\n     M.C. Bhandare, K.K. Mani, Mohan Katarki, Prem Malhotra,
\nS.G. Sambandam,\t A. Subba Rao, S. Srinivasan, Mahabir Singh,
\nM.C. Verma,  M.A. Krishnamurthy\t and  K.L.  Taneja  for\t the
\nPetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     B. Padmanabhan,  A.T.M. Sampath,  R.N.  Keshwani,\tK.P.
\nGopala\tKrishnan,   N.\tDoraikannan,   A.V.   Rangam,\tC.S.
\nVaidyanathan, Ms. Lily Thomas, Ms. Baby Krishnan, P.\n<\/p>\n
599<\/span><\/p>\n
Jayaraman, V. Balachandran, K. Swami and Mohan Parasaran for
\nthe Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. The  question raised\tin all these
\nwrit petitions\tis whether  sec. 30(ii)\t of the\t Tamil\tNadu
\nBuildings  (Lease   and\t  Rent\t Control)   Act,   1960\t  is
\nconstitutionally valid.\t This  provision  excepts  from\t the
\napplication of\tthe Act\t “any residential  building or\tpart
\nthereof occupied  by any one tenant if the monthly rent paid
\nby him\tin respect  of that  building or  part exceeds\tfour
\nhundred rupees.”  The argument\tis that\t though the  Act  is
\ndesigned to  apply generally  to all  residential  and\tnon-
\nresidential  buildings,\t  residential  buildings   or  parts
\nthereof fetching a rent of more than rupees four hundred are
\nsingled out  and taken\tout  of\t the  purview  of  the\tact,
\narbitrarily and\t without any  reason. It  is said  that\t the
\nclassification of  tenants of residential buildings fetching
\na rent of over rupees four hundred per month into a distinct
\nclass for  the purpose\tof depriving  them of the benefit of
\nthe Act\t by excepting  such buildings  from the operation of
\nthe Act\t has no reasonable nexus to the three-fold object of
\nthe  Act,   namely,  the   regulation  of   the\t letting  of
\nresidential  as\t  well\tas  non-residential  buildings,\t the
\ncontrol of  rents of  such buildings  and the  prevention of
\nunreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  State of  Tamil Nadu,  it all  started with two
\nwartime measures,  the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941
\nand the\t Madras Godown Rent Control Order, 1942, both issued
\nunder the  Defence of  India Rules.  These orders  were\t re-
\nissued with  slight modifications in 1945 as the Madras Rent
\nControl Order  1945 and the Madras Non-Residential Buildings
\nRent Control  Order 1945. They were repealed and replaced by
\nthe Madras  Buildings (Lease  and Rent\tControl) Act,  1946.
\nThis Act<\/a>  also was later repealed and replaced by the Madras
\nBuildings (Lease  and Rent  Control) Act,  1949. The present
\nAct, the  Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
\n1960 was  enacted in  1960 repealing  and replacing the 1949
\nAct. Upto  the time of enactment of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
\n(Lease and Rent Control)
\n600<\/span>
\nAct, 1960, no exception was made from the purview of the Act
\nin respect  of any  class of residential and non-residential
\nbuildings based\t on the\t rent fetched  by the  buildings. By
\nsec. 30(ii)  for the  first time, the 1960 Act excepted from
\nthe application\t of  the  Act  residential  buildings  which
\nfetched a rent of more than rupees two hundred and fifty per
\nmonth and  non-residential buildings which fetched a rent of
\nmore than  rupees four\thundred per  month as entered in the
\nproperty register or assessment book of the municipality. In
\n1961, this  provision was amended by Act 20 of 1961 so as to
\nmake the  exception applicable\tto either a building or part
\nthereof and  on the  basis of  the actual  rent paid  by the
\ntenant and  not on  the basis of the rental value as entered
\nin  the\t  property  register   or  assessment  book  of\t the
\nmunicipality.  In   1964,  the\tprovision  relating  to\t the
\nexception made\tin the\tcase  of  non-residential  buildings
\nfetching a  rent of  more than rupees four hundred per month
\nwas deleted, with the result that tenants of non-residential
\nbuildings were\tentitled to  the protection  afforded by the
\nAct irrespective  of  the  rent\t paid  by  them.  Thereafter
\npursuant to the recommendation made by a Committee appointed
\nby the\tGovernment of  Tamil Nadu  in 1969,  sec. 30(ii) was
\nfurther amended by Act 23 of 1973 by substituting the figure
\nrupees four hundred for the figure of rupees two hundred and
\nfifty in  that provision.  It is the vires of this provision
\nas it now stands, that is in question before us.\n<\/p>\n
     The long  title of\t the Act  is “An  Act<\/a> to  amend\t and
\nconsolidate the\t law  relating\tto  the\t regulation  of\t the
\nletting of residential and non-residential buildings and the
\ncontrol of  rents of  such buildings  and the  prevention of
\nunreasonable eviction  of tenants  therefrom in the State of
\nTamil Nadu.”  The Preamble  to\tthe  Act  similarly  recites
\n“Whereas it  is expedient  to amend  and consolidate the law
\nrelating to the regulation of the letting of residential and
\nnon-residential buildings  and the  control of rents of such
\nbuildings and  the preventions\tof unreasonable\t eviction of
\ntenants therefrom in the State of Tamil Nadu”. “Building” is
\ndefined by sec. 2(2) as meaning “any building or hut or part
\nof building  or\t hut,  let  or\tto  be\tlet  separately\t for
\nresidential or\tnon-residential purposes  and includes – (a)
\nthe garden  grounds and\t out-houses, if\t any, appurtenant to
\nsuch buildings,\t hut or part of such building or hut and let
\nor to be let along with such building or hut, but
\n601<\/span>
\ndoes not  include a  room in  a\t hotel\tor  boarding  house;
\nsection 3<\/a>  casts a  duty on  the landlord  to give notice of
\nvacancy of  a building.\t Sections 3<\/a>  and 3(A)<\/a>  prescribe the
\nprocedure to  be followed  after intimation  of\t vacancy  is
\ngiven, either  by way  of allotment  to some other person or
\nrelease in  favour of  the landlord.  Section 4<\/a> provides for
\nthe fixation  of fair  rent both  for residential  and\tnon-
\nresidential buildings.\tSection 7<\/a>  prohibits a landlord from
\nreceiving rent\tin  excess  of\tthe  fair  rent.  Section  8<\/a>
\nrequires every\tlandlord to  issue a  receipt duly signed by
\nhim for\t the actual  amount of\trent or\t advance received by
\nhim. Section  9<\/a> enables\t the  tenant  to  deposit  the\trent
\nlawfully payable  to the landlord in respect of the building
\nbefore the  Controller in  certain  situations.\t Section  10<\/a>
\nprovides  for  and  enumerates\tthe  grounds  upon  which  a
\nlandlord  may\tseek  eviction\tof  his\t tenant\t before\t the
\nController. Section  14<\/a> provides  for recovery of possession
\nof a  building bona-fide required by a landlord for carrying
\nout repairs which cannot be otherwise carried out or for the
\ndemolition  of\tthe  building  and  construction  of  a\t new
\nbuilding. Section  15<\/a> enables  the tenant  to re-occupy\t the
\nbuilding vacated  by him to enable the landlord to carry out
\nrepairs after  such repairs  are carried  out or  after\t the
\nstipulated time\t if repairs  are not  carried out within the
\ntime. Section  16<\/a> is a provision corresponding to sec. 15 in
\nrespect of  a building vacated for the purpose of demolition
\nand construction.  Section  17<\/a>\tprohibits  a  landlord\tfrom
\ninterferring with  the amenities  enjoyed by  a\t tenant\t and
\nempowers the  Controller to  give appropriate  relief  where
\nsuch amenities\tare interferred\t with. Section\t21<\/a> prohibits
\nthe  conversion\t of  a\tresidential  building  into  a\tnon-
\nresidential building  except with  the permission in writing
\nof the Controller. Section 22<\/a> makes provisions for effecting
\nrepairs to  a building\twhere the landlord fails to make the
\nnecessary repairs.  Thus we  see so far, that the scheme and
\nstructure,  the\t  policy  and\tthe  plan  of  the  Act,  as
\nperceivable from these provisions, are unmistakably aimed at
\nregulating the\tconditions of tenancy, Controlling the rents
\nand preventing\tunreasonable  eviction\tof  tenants  of\t all
\nresidential   and   non-residential   buildings.   For\t the
\nadvancement of\tthese objects,\ttenants\t are  invested\twith
\ncertain\t rights\t and  landlords\t are  subjected\t to  certain
\nobligations. These  rights and obligations, for example, the
\nright of  a tenant  not to  be evicted\tand the\t prohibition
\nagainst\t a   landlord  from  seeking  eviction\texcept\tupon
\nspecified grounds, the right of a tenant
\n602<\/span>
\nnot to\tpay  rent  in  excess  of  the\tfair  rent  and\t the
\nobligation of a landlord not to demand such excess rent, the
\nright of  a tenant to obtain a receipt for the actual amount
\nof rent and advance paid by him and the right of a tenant to
\nenjoy and the obligation of a landlord not to interfere with
\nthe enjoyment  of the  amenities previously  enjoyed by\t the
\ntenant, are  rights and\t obligations which,  in\t any  modern
\ncivilised  society,   attach  themselves   to  tenants\t and
\nlandlords of  all buildings, residential or non-residential,
\nlow-rent  or  high-rent.  They\tare  not  rights  which\t are
\npeculiarly  capable   of  enjoyment  by\t occupants  of\tnon-
\nresidential  buildings\t only  as   against   occupants\t  of
\nresidential buildings  or by occupants of low-rent buildings
\nonly as\t against occupants  of high-rent  buildings. None of
\nthe main  provisions of\t the Act, to which we have referred,
\nmake any  serious distinction  between residential  and non-
\nresidential buildings.\tWe may\tnow turn  to s. 30(ii)<\/a> which
\nreads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Nothing contained  in this Act shall apply to any
\n\t  residential building\tor part\t thereof occupied by
\n\t  anyone tenant\t if the\t monthly rent paid by him in
\n\t  respect of  that building  or\t part  exceeds\tfour
\n\t  hundred rupees.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
|By one stroke, this provision denies the benefits conferred
\nby  the\t  Act  generally   on  all  tenants  to\t tenants  of
\nresidential buildings  fetching a  rent in  excess  of\tfour
\nhundred rupees.\t As a  result of  this provision,  while the
\ntenant of  a non-residential  building is protected, whether
\nthe rent  is Rs. 50, Rs. 500 or Rs. 5000 per month, a tenant
\nof a  residential building  is protected  if the rent is Rs.
\n50, but\t not if it is Rs. 500 or Rs. 5000 per month. Does it
\nmean that the tenant of a residential building paying a rent
\nof Rs. 500 is better able to protect himself than the tenant
\nof a  non-residential building paying a rent of Rs. 5000 per
\nmonth? Does  it\t mean  that  the  tenant  of  a\t residential
\nbuilding who pays a rent of Rs. 500 per month is not in need
\nof any\tstatutory protection?  Is there\t any basis  for\t the
\ndistinction between the tenant of a residential building and
\nthe tenant  of a  non-residential building and that based on
\nthe rent  paid by  the\trespective  tenants?  Is  there\t any
\njustification at all for picking out the class of tenants of
\nresidential buildings  paying  a  rent\tof  more  than\tfour
\nhundred rupees per month to deny them the
\n603<\/span>
\n|rights conferred  generally on\t all  tenants  of  buildings
\nresidential or\tnon-residential by the Act? Neither from the
\nPreamble of  the Act  nor from the provisions of the Act has
\nit been\t possible for  us even\tto discern any basis for the
\nclassification made  by s. 30(ii)<\/a> of the Act. In the counter
\naffidavit filed\t by Selvi  A. Raju on behalf of the State of
\nTamil Nadu,  the classification is sought to be justified in
\nthe following manner :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I submit  that the plea of hostile discrimination
\n\t  and inequality  of treatment is not involved in s.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  30. I submit the provision for upper limit of rent
\n\t  has been  fixed to  afford  protection  to  weaker
\n\t  sections of  tenants who  pay rent  below Rs.\t 400
\n\t  …………….These successive  enactments\thave
\n\t  embodied  a\tprefectly  rational   principle\t  of
\n\t  classification,  and\t the  criteria\t and   their
\n\t  application have  been evolved  from time to time,
\n\t  in accordance\t with the  needs of  this  class  of
\n\t  citizens. There  is also  a clear  and discernible
\n\t  nexus between\t the object  of the  measure and the
\n\t  differentia  themselves………………I  submit
\n\t  that\tthe  classification  based  on\tthe  purpose
\n\t  “residential” and  “non-residential” is  based  on
\n\t  well-recognised   and\t   rational   principle\t  of
\n\t  differentia ……………It\t is incorrect to say
\n\t  that s.  30(ii)<\/a> of  the Act defeats the purpose of
\n\t  the Act.  As submitted already, the classification
\n\t  of the  protected buildings and exempted buildings
\n\t  on the  basis of  the rent  is  a  reasonable\t one
\n\t  consistent with  the object  of the  Act and it is
\n\t  not  discriminatory.\t As  submitted\t already,  a
\n\t  distinction based  on rent  in an  intelligent one
\n\t  and has  also got rational relation to the objects
\n\t  sought to  be achieved………….It\t is  equally
\n\t  incorrect to\tsay that the provisions of s. 30(ii)<\/a>
\n\t  are a\t total departure from the rent Act and takes
\n\t  away the  protection afforded\t to the tenant under
\n\t  the Act,  thus  rendering  the  Act  nugatory.  As
\n\t  submitted already,  the provisions of s. 30(ii)<\/a> do
\n\t  not at  all contain  any  hostile  discrimination,
\n\t  simply  because   it\tis   based  on\t quantum  of
\n\t  rent………I submit that taking into account the
\n\t  general increase in rent and the cost of living
\n604<\/span>
\n\t  index, the upper limit had to be increased keeping
\n\t  in mind  the welfare\tof the\tweaker\tsections  of
\n\t  society. Hence  I submit  that the change of upper
\n\t  limit\t    cannot\tbe\tsaid\t  to\t  be
\n\t  discriminatory……….The grant  and  withdrawal
\n\t  of exemption\thave been  done only keeping in mind
\n\t  the welfare  of the weaker sections of the society
\n\t  and it  is only  with that  object, exemption\t had
\n\t  been\twithdrawn   with   regard   to\t residential
\n\t  buildings.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  counter   affidavit  does   not  explain  why\t any
\ndistinction should  be made  between  residential  and\tnon-
\nresidential  buildings\t in  the  matter  of  affording\t the
\nprotection of  the provisions of the Act. To say that a non-
\nresidential  building\tis  different\tfrom  a\t residential
\nbuilding is  merely to\tsay what  is self-evident  and means
\nnothing. Tenants of both kinds of buildings equally need the
\nprotection of  the beneficent  provisions  of  the  Act.  No
\nattempt has  been made\tto show\t that the  tenants  of\tnon-
\nresidential buildings  are in  a disadvantageous position as
\ncompared  with\t tenants  of   residential   buildings\t and
\ntherefore, they\t need greater protection. There is and there
\ncan be\tno whisper to that effect. To illustrate by analogy,
\nit is not enough to say that man and woman are different and
\ntherefore, they need not be paid equal wages even if they do
\nequal work. The counter affidavit has repeatedly referred to
\nthe weaker  sections of\t the people and stated that in order
\nto protect  the weaker sections of the people, a distinction
\nhas been  made between\tthem and those who are in a position
\nto pay\thigher rent.  It is  difficult to understand how the
\nexclusion of tenants who pay higher rent from the protection
\nafforded by  the Act  will help to protect tenants belonging
\nto the\tweaker sections of the community. It is one thing to
\nsay that  tenants belonging  to the  weaker sections  of the
\ncommunity need\tprotection and an altogether different thing
\nto say\tthat denial  of protection  to tenants paying higher
\nrents will  protect the\t weaker sections  of the  community.
\nFurther the  distinction suggested in the counter appears to
\nbe quite  antipathic to\t the actual  provision because as we
\npointed out earlier, there is no such ceiling in the case of
\ntenants of  non-residential buildings and therefore a tenant
\nof a  non-residential building who is in a position to pay a
\nrent of\t Rs. 5000  per month  is afforded full protection by
\nthe Act, whereas, inconsistently enough, the
\n605<\/span>
\ntenant of  a residential building who pays a rent of Rs. 500
\nis left\t high and dry. It certainly cannot be pretended that
\nthe provision  is intended to benefit the weaker sections of
\nthe people  only. We  must also\t observe here  that whatever
\njustification there may have been in 1973 when s. 30(ii)<\/a> was
\namended by  imposing a ceiling of Rs. 400 on rent payable by
\ntenants of residential buildings to entitle them to seek the
\nprotection of  the Act,\t the passage  of time  has made\t the
\nceiling utterly\t unreal. We  are entitled  to take  judicial
\nnotice of  the enormous\t multifold increase of rents through
\nout the\t country, particularly\tin urban areas. It is common
\nknowledge today\t that the accommodation which one could have
\npossibly got  for Rs.  400 per month in 1973 will today cost
\nat least  five times  more. In\tthese days of universal, day
\ntoday escalation of rentals any ceiling such as that imposed
\nby s.  30(ii)<\/a> in  1973 can  only be considered to be totally
\nartificial and\tirrelevant today.  As held  by this Court in
\nMotor General  Traders v.  State of Andhra Pradesh<\/a>, [1984] 1
\nS.C.C. 222  = A.I.R.  1984 S.C.\t 87 a  provision  which\t was
\nperfectly valid\t at the\t commencement of  the Act  could  be
\nchallenged later  on the  ground of  unconstitutionality and
\nstruck down  on that  basis. What was once a perfectly valid
\nlegislation, may  in course  of time,  become discriminatory
\nand liable to challenge on the ground of its being violative
\nof Art.\t 14.<\/a> After  referring to  some of  the earlier cases
\nVenkataramiah, J. observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…….The garb of constitutionality which it may
\n\t  have possessed earlier has become worn out and its
\n\t  unconstitutionality  is   now\t brought  out  to  a
\n\t  successful challenge.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
|Shri A.V.  Rangam, learned  counsel for  the State of Tamil
\nNadu, invited  our attention  to  some\tsentences  from\t the
\njudgment of  this Court\t in Raval  &  Co.  v.  Ramachandran<\/a>,
\n[1974] 2  S.C.R. 629 where, referring to s. 30(ii)<\/a> before it
\nwas amended in 1973, it was observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Clause (ii)\texempts any  residential building or
\n\t  part\tthereof\t occupied  by  any  tenant,  if\t the
\n\t  monthly rent paid by him exceeds Rs. 250. Here the
\n\t  object of  the legislature  clearly was  that\t the
\n\t  protection of the beneficent provisions of the Act
\n\t  should be  available only  to small tenants paying
\n\t  rent not
\n606<\/span>
\n\t  exceeding Rs.\t 250 per month as they belong to the
\n\t  weaker section  of the  community and\t really need
\n\t  protection  against\texploitation  by   rapacious
\n\t  landlords. Those who can afford to pay higher rent
\n\t  would ordinarily  be well  to do  people and\tthey
\n\t  would not be so much in need of protection and can
\n\t  without much difficulty look after themselves.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
|These\tobservations  were  made  in  1974  soon  after\t the
\namendment of  the Act in 1973. They were made in a different
\ncontext and  not in  the context of a challenge to the vires
\nof the provisions as violative of Art. 14.<\/a> As we pointed out
\nearlier, the  argument based  on protection  of\t the  weaker
\nsections of  the community is entirely inconsistent with the
\nprotection given to tenants of non-residential buildings who
\nare in\ta position  to pay  much higher rents than the rents
\nwhich those  who are  in occupation of residential buildings
\ncan ever  pay. We  are, therefore,  satisfied  that  section
\n30(ii) of  the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
\nAct, 1960  has to  be struck down as violative of Art. 14<\/a> of
\nthe Constitution. A writ will issue declaring sec. 30(ii) as
\nunconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t  Petitions allowed.\n607<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 1444, 1986 SCR (2) 596 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: RATTAN ARYA ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/04\/1986 BENCH: REDDY, […]<\/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-263479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986 - 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\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986\" \/>\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=\"1986-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-31T02:50:41+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-31T02:50:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986\"},\"wordCount\":3012,\"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\\\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986\",\"name\":\"Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-31T02:50:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986\"}]},{\"@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":"Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986 - 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\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-31T02:50:41+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986","datePublished":"1986-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-31T02:50:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986"},"wordCount":3012,"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\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986","name":"Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-31T02:50:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-arya-etc-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-anr-on-16-april-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rattan Arya Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 16 April, 1986"}]},{"@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\/263479","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=263479"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263479\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}