{"id":64990,"date":"1984-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984"},"modified":"2018-05-21T11:28:00","modified_gmt":"2018-05-21T05:58:00","slug":"s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984","title":{"rendered":"S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 257, \t\t 1985 SCR (2) 398<\/div>\n
Author: V Tulzapurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Tulzapurkar, V.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS. KANDASWAMY CHETTIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/12\/1984\n\nBENCH:\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nBENCH:\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nPATHAK, R.S.\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1985 AIR  257\t\t  1985 SCR  (2) 398\n 1985 SCC  (1) 291\t  1984 SCALE  (2)933\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1987 SC2117\t (20)\n\n\nACT:\n     Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960\n(Tamil Nadu  Act 18 of 1960). Section 29-Notification issued\nthereunder granting  total exemption  to all buildings own-d\nby the\tHindu, Christian  and Muslim religious Public Trusts\nand Public  Charitable Trusts from all the provisions of the\nAct- Whether  suffers from  the vice of excessive delegation\nof legislature\tpowers, and therefore, violative of, Article\n14  of\tthe  Constitution-Whether  the\ttotal  exemption  is\nexcessive unwarranted  and unsupportable  in as\t much  as  o\npartial exemption would have sufficed.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In exercise  of the  powers conferred  by section 29 of\nthe Tamil  Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960\nthe Government\tof Tamil Nadu issued a Notification G.O. Ms.\n2000 (Homo Department) dated 16th August, 1976 exempting all\nthe buildings  owned by\t the  Hindu,  Christian\t and  Muslim\nreligious public  trusts and  public- charitable trusts from\nall the\t provisions of\tthe Act.  The tenants challenged the\nNotification  granting\ttotal  exemption  through  the\tsaid\nNotification on three grounds namely; (a) that section 29 of\nthe Act\t suffers from  the vice\t of excessive  delegation of\nlegislative powers  in as  much as  it vests  in  the  State\nGovernment  unguided  and  uncontrolled\t discretion  in\t the\nmatter of  granting exemptions\tand is, therefore, violative\nof Article 14 of the Constitution; (b) that the Notification\ndated 16th  August, 1976  deprives the\ttenants of  all such\nbuildings  (belonging\tto  Hindu.   Christian\tand   Muslim\nreligious public trusts and public charitable trusts) of the\nequal protection  of the  beneficial provisions\t of the\t Act\nwhich is  available to the tenants of other buildings and as\nsuch the  same is discriminatory offending against the equal\nprotection clause  of Article  14; and (c) that in any event\nthe total  exemption from  all the  provisions\tof  the\t Act\ngranted to  such buildings,  where partial  exemption  would\nhave sufficed is excessive, unwarranted and unsupportable.\n      The State Government and the respondent landlords have\nrefuted all  the grounds  on which  the exemption  has\tbeen\nchallenged and\tfurther sought to justify the grant of total\nexemption mainly  on the  basis that  the freedom (right) to\nrecover the  reasonable market\trent  would  be\t ineffective\nwithout the freedom to evict the tenant.\n      Dismissing  the writ  petitions and  the civil appeals\nthe Court,\n399\n^\n\t    HELD: 1.1 In view of the decision of the Supreme\nCourt in P.J. Irani v. The State of Madras,<\/a> [1962] 2 SCR 169\ndealing with an identical provision contained in the earlier\nMadras\tenactment   the\t challenge   to\t the  Constitutional\nvalidity of section 29 cannot be sustained. [405A-B]\n      P.  J. Irani  v. State  of Madras,<\/a>  [1962] 2  SCR 169;\nState of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanhaiyalal,<\/a> 1970 (15) M.P.L.U SC\n973 relied on.\n      1.  2. The rationale behind the conferal of such power\nto grant  exemptions  or  to  make  exceptions\tis  that  an\ninflexible application\tof the\tprovisions of  the  Act\t may\nunder some  circumstances  result  in  unnecessary  hardship\nentirely disproportionate to the good which will result from\na literal  enforcement of  the Act  and also  the  practical\nimpossibility of  anticipating in  advance such\t hardship to\nsuch  exceptional   cases.  In\t the  matter  of  beneficial\nlegislations also  there are  bound to\tbe cases in which an\ninflexible application\tof the\tprovisions of  the enactment\nmay  result   in  unnecessary\tand   undue   hardship\t 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  may   result   from   uniform\napplication  of\t such  provisions  to  cases  which  deserve\ndifferent treatment. Of course, the power to grant exemption\nhas to be exercised in accordance with the policy and object\nof the enactment gatherable from the preamble as well as its\noperative provisions  without subverting the general purpose\nof the enactment. [406G-H, 407A-B]\n      P.  J. Irani  v. State  of Madras,<\/a>  [1962] 2  SCR\t 169\nrelied on.\n      Gorieb  v. Fox, [1926] 71 Lawyers Edition at page 1230\nquoted with approval .\n\t2. That\t Tamil Nadu  Act is  a piece  of  beneficial\nlegislation intended  to remedy the two evils of rackrenting\n(exaction of  exhorbitant rents)  and unreasonable  eviction\ngenerated by  a large  scale of\t influx of population to big\ncities and  urban areas\t in the post Second World War period\ncreating acute\tshortage of  accommodation in such areas and\nthe enactment  avowedly protects  the rights  of tenants  in\noccupation of  buildings in  such areas\t from being  charged\nunreasonable  rents  and  from\tbeing  unreasonably  evicted\ntherefrom.  The\t Legislature  itself  has  made\t a  rational\nclassification of  buildings  belonging\t to  government\t and\nbuildings belonging  to religious,  charitable,\t educational\nand other  public institutions\tand the\t different treatment\naccorded to  such buildings  under section  10(3) (b) of the\nAct, which obviously proceeds on the well-founded assumption\nthat the  government  as  well\tas  the\t landlords  of\tsuch\nbuildings are not expected to and would not indulge in rack-\nrenting or  unreasonable eviction.  This and  similar  other\nprovisions crystalize the policy and the purposes of the Act\nand furnish  the requisite  guidance which  can legitimately\ngovern\tthe   exercise\tof  power  conferred  on  the  State\nGovernment under  section 29  of the  Act The power to grant\nexemptions  or\t make  exceptions   could  be\tlegitimately\nexercised by  the State\t Government in\tareas or cases where\nthe mischief sought to be remedied by\n400\nthe Act\t is neither  prevalent nor  apprehended as  also  in\ncases (individual  or class  of cases)\twhere a\t uniform  or\ninflexible application\tof the\tlaw is\tlikely to  result in\nunnecessary or\tundue hardship\t(here the  landlords) or  in\ncases where  the beneficial  provision is likely to be or is\nbeing abused  by persons  for whom  it is intended there the\ntenants) [407D-E, 408F-H, 409A]\n      3.1.  Public religious  and charitable  endowments  or\ntrusts constitute   a  well recognised\tdistinct group in as\nmuch  as  they\tnot  only  serve  public  purposes  but\t the\ndisbursement of their income is governed by the objects with\nwhich they  are created\t and  buildings\t belonging  to\tsuch\npublic religious and charitable endowments or trusts clearly\nfall into a distinct class different from buildings owned by\nprivate landlords.  Therefore, their classification into one\ngroup  done  by\t the  State  Government\t while\tissuing\t the\nimpugned notification  must be regarded as having been based\non an intelligible differentia. [409F-G]\n      3.2.  In view  of the  counter affidavit\tfiled by the\nState  Government  dated  10-2-1981  and  the  supplementary\ncounter affidavit  dated 24th  September, 1983 to the effect\nthat the  government was satisfied that \"in all these cases,\nthe rent  paid by  the tenants was very low, meagre and that\nthe provisions\tof fixation of fair rent under the Act would\nnot meet  the ends  of justice\tand the situation will still\ncontinue  in   which  the  tenant  will\t be  exploiting\t the\nsituation and  the  helplessness  of  the  public  religious\ntrusts and charitable institutions and hence they decided to\nwithdraw the  protection given\tunder the Act to the tenants\nof such\t buildings\", not  having been  challenged by  way of\nrejoinder affidavits  by the  petitioners\/appellants, it  is\nclear that  buildings belonging to such public religious and\ncharitable endowments  or trusts  clearly fell\tinto a class\nwhere undue hardship and injustice relating to them from the\nuniform application  of the beneficial provisions of the Act\nneeded to be relieved and the exemption granted will have to\nbe regarded  as being  germane to the policy and purposes of\nthe Act. In other words, the classification made has a clear\nnexus  with  the  object  with\twhich  the  power  to  grant\nexemption has been conferred upon the State Government under\nsection 29 of the Act. [411C, 412B-G]\n      State  of Rajasthan v. Mukanchand and Others,<\/a> [1964] 6\nSCR 903; held inapplicable.\n\t 3.3. Granting total exemption cannot be regarded as\nexcessive  or\tunwarranted.  The   two\t objectives  of\t the\nenactment,  namely,   to  control   rents  and\t to  prevent\nunreasonable eviction  are interrelated\t and the  provisions\nwhich subserve\tthese objectives supplement each other It is\nobvious that  if the trustees of the public religious trusts\nand public  charities are  to be given freedom to charge the\nnormal market  rent then  to make  that freedom effective it\nwill be\t necessary to  arm the\ttrustees with  the right  to\nevict the  tenants for\tnon-payment of such market rent. The\nState  Government   on\tmaterials  before  it  came  to\t the\nconclusion that\t the 'fair  rent' filled  under the  Act was\nunjust in  case of  such buildings  and it  was necessary to\npermit the  trustees of such buildings to recover from their\ntenants reasonable  market rent\t and  if  that\tbe  so\tnon-\neviction when  reasonable market  rent is  not paid would be\nunreasonable and if the market rent is paid by the\n401\n      tenants no trustee is going to evict them. Further, it\nis conceivable\tthat trustees of buildings belonging to such\npublic religious institutions or public charities may desire\neviction of  their tenants  for the  purpose of carrying out\nmajor  or   substantial\t repairs   or  for  the\t purpose  of\ndemolition and\treconstruction and  the State Government may\nhave felt that the trustees of such buildings should be able\nto effect  evictions without  being required to fulfil other\nonerous conditions  which must\tbe complied  with by private\nlandlord when they seek evictions for such purpose. [413D-E,\n414C-G]\n      3.4.  The manner\tin which exemption from rent control\nprovisions should be granted, whether it could be partial or\ntotal and  if so  on what  terms  and  conditions  would  be\nmatters for  each State Government to decide in the light of\nthe scheme and provisions of the concerned enactment and the\nfacts and  circumstances touching  the classification  made.\nAnd if\tthe State  of Madras  has thought  fit to  grant the\nexemption  in\ta  particular\tmanner\t by   the   impugned\nnotification is\t cannot\t be  faulted.  if  to  exemption  so\ngranted is not illegal or unconstitutional. [415A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      ORIGINAL\tJURISDICTION: W.P. Nos 4433,4642-57\/78, 337-
\n339, 757-58,  943, 291\tand 1351  of 79,4103 and 6271\/80,731
\nand 1943\/81,  8274 and\t9879\/83 and  C.A. NOS.\t3108-3109\/81
\nwith W.P. NOS. 7941 and 7883\/81.\n<\/p>\n
      N.  Natesan, A.  T. M Sampath and P. N. Ramalingam for
\nthe petitioners in W.P. NOS. 4642-57 and 4433 of 1978
\n      Dr.  Y S. Chitale, A T.M. Sampath, S.A. Rajan and P.N.
\nRamalingam for the petitioners in W.P. NOS. 337-339 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
      M.  Natesan, and Raghuraman for the petitioner in W.P.
\nNo. 1943 of 1981.\n<\/p>\n
      A.T.M.  Sampath and P.N. Ramalingam for the petitioner
\nin W.P. NOS. 757-58 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
      S.  Srinivasan for  the petitioner  in W.P. NO. 943 of
\n1979.\n<\/p>\n
      P.R.  Ramasesh for  the petitioner  in W.P. NO. 731 of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
      A.T.M.  Sampath and P.N. Ramalingam for the petitioner
\nin W.P. NO. 7941 and 7883 of 82.\n<\/p>\n
      A.T.M.  Sampath and P.N. Ramalingam for the petitioner
\nin W.P. NOS. 1357-58 of 79.\n<\/p>\n
      P. Sinha for the petitioner in W.P. NO. 8274 of 83.
\n      P.N.  Ramalingam for  appellants in C. NOS. 3108-09 Of
\n81,
\n402<\/span>
\n\t      R.S.  Ramamurthy,\t P.  Govindan  Nair,  M.K.D.
\nNamboodry,  S.\t Balakrishnan  and  E.C.  Agarwala  for\t the
\nrespondents in W.P. Nos. 6271\/80 and 4642-57 and 4433 of 78.\n<\/p>\n
      T.S.  Krishnamoorthy, Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan and Gopal
\nSubramanian for the respondents is W.P. No. 4103180.\n<\/p>\n
      Shanker  Ghosh, and  D.N. Gupta for the respondents in
\nW.P. No. 943\/79.\n<\/p>\n
\t     S.T. Desai, T.S. Krishnamurthy, A.V. Rangam, K.
\nRamamurthy and\tS.Balakrishnan for  the respondents  in W.P.
\nNo. 731182.\n<\/p>\n
      Mohan Pandey and Ali Ahmed for the interveners in W.P.
\nNos. 4642-57  of 78. K. Ram Kumar for the respondent in C.A.
\nNos. 3108-3109\/81 and W.P. Nos. 7941 and 7883\/82.\n<\/p>\n
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t   TULZAPURKAR, J. In these writ petitions and civil
\nappeals by special leave the petitioners and appellants, who
\nare tenants  of several\t buildings belonging  to the  Hindu,
\nChristian and  Muslim religious\t public trusts\tas  also  to
\npublic charitable trusts in the State
\n of Tamil Nadu, have challenged the legality and or validity
\nof the\ttotal exemption\t granted to  all such buildings from
\nall the\t provisions of\tthe Tamil  Nadu Buildings (Lease and
\nRent Control)  Act, 1960  (Tamil Act  18 of 1960) (for short
\n‘the Act’)  in exercise\t of the\t powers conferred  upon\t the
\nState Govt. under s. 29 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      Section 29 of the Act runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “22.\tExemptions-Notwithstanding  anything
\n     contained in  this Act,  the Government may, subject to
\n     such condition  as\t they  deem  fit,  by  notification,
\n     exempt any\t buildings or class of buildings from all or
\n     any of the provisions of this Act”\n<\/p>\n
      It appears that initially by G. O. Ms. No. 1998 (Home)
\ndated 12th  August,  1974,  the\t State\tGovernment  had,  in
\nexercise  of  its  powers  under  s.  29  exempted  all\t the
\nbuildings owned\t by the Hindu Christian and Muslim religious
\ntrusts and  charitable institutions  from all the provisions
\nof the\tAct; in\t other words  the exemption was available to
\nbuildings  of  private\treligious  trusts  as  also  private
\ncharitable trusts.  But later  on by  a fresh  G. O. Ms. No.
\n2000<\/span>
\n403<\/span>
\n\t     (Home)  dated  16th  August,  1976,  the  State
\nGovernment, in\tsuper- A session of the earlier Notification
\ndated 12th  August, 1974,  confined  the  exemption  to\t all
\nbuildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious
\npublic trusts  and public  charitable trusts.  ‘the relevant
\nNotification which is being impugned herein runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
      “G  O. Ms\t . No. 2000, Home, 16th August, 1976) No. II
\n(2)\/HO\/4520\/76.-In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by
\nsection 29  of the  Tamil Nadu\tBuildings  (Lease  and\tRent
\nControl) Act,  1960 (Tamil  Nadu Act  18 of  1960),  and  in
\nsupersession of\t the Home  Department  Notification  No.  II
\n(2)\/HO\/3811\/74, dated  the 12th\t August, 1974,\tpublished at
\npage 444  of Part  ll-section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government
\nGazette, dated\tthe 12th August, 1974, the Governor of Tamil
\nNadu hereby  exempts all  the buildings\t owned by the Hindu,
\nChristian and  Muslim religious\t public\t trusts\t and  public
\ncharitable trusts from all the provisions of the said Act.”\n<\/p>\n
      The tenants have challenged the aforesaid Notification
\ngranting total\texemption to  all buildings belonging to the
\nHindu, Christian  and Muslim  religious\t public\t trusts\t and
\npublic charitable  trusts from all the provisions of the Act
\non three  grounds-(a) that s. 29 of the Act suffers from the
\nvice of\t excessive delegation  of legislative  powers in  as
\nmuch as\t it vests  in  the  State  Government  unguided\t and
\nuncontrolled discretion in the matter of granting exemptions
\nand is, therefore, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution,\n<\/p>\n
(b) that  the Notification  dated 16th August, 1976 deprives
\nthe tenants  of all  such buildings (buildingsr belonging to
\nHindu, Christian  and Muslim  religious\t public\t trusts\t and
\npublic charitable  trusts) of  the equal  protection of\t the
\nbeneficial provisions  of the  Act which is available to the
\ntenants\t of   other  buildings\tand  as\t such  the  same  is
\ndiscriminatory offending against the equal protection clause
\nof Art.\t 14 and\t (c) that  in any  event the total exemption
\nfrom  all   the\t provisions  of\t the  Act  granted  to\tsuch
\nbuildings, where  partial exemption  would have sufficed, is
\nexcessive, unwarranted and unsupportable.\n<\/p>\n
      On  the other hand, the State Govt. and the respondent
\nlandlords  have\t  refuted  all\tthe  grounds  on  which\t the
\nexemption has  been challenged.\t It is\tdenied that unguided
\nand uncontrolled  discretion has  been\tconferred  upon\t the
\nState Govt.  by s.  29 of  the Act  and it is contended that
\nenough\tguidance   is  afforded\t by  the  Preamble  and\t the
\noperative provisions of the Act for the exercise of the
\n404<\/span>
\ndiscretionary power  vested in the State Govt. It is pointed
\nout that  in P.\t J. Irani  v.  The  State  of  Madras<\/a>(‘)  an
\nidentical provision  contained\tin  the\t earlier  enactment,
\nnamely, the  Madras Buildings  (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
\n1949  was   upheld  in\t the  context  of  Art.\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution by\t this Court  on the  basis that the Preamble
\nand the\t operative provisions  of that\tAct gave  sufficient
\nguidance for  the exercise of the discretionary power vested
\nin the\tState Govt.,  namely, that  the said power was to be
\nexercised in  cases where  the protection  given by  the Act
\ncaused great  hardship to the landlord or was the subject of
\nabuse by  the tenant;  and it is urged that similar guidance
\nis afforded  by the Preamble and the operative provisions of
\nthe instant Act and s. 29 cannot be said to be violative  of
\nArt. 14.  The respondents  have further\t contended that even
\nthe point  regarding the constitutional validity of granting
\nexemption to  buildings belonging to charities, religious or
\nsecular in  the context\t of the\t equal protection  clause of
\nArt. 14\t could be  said to  have been  concluded against the
\ntenants of  such buildings by the observations of this Court
\nin P.J.\t Irani’s case (supra), it is pointed out that though
\nin that\t case this  Court was  dealing with  a\tNotification
\ngranting exemption  in favour  of  a  particular  individual
\nbuilding, the  Court has  made\tobservations  which  clearly
\nindicate that  where it\t is a  case of granting exemption in
\nfavour of  a class of buildings all that is required is that
\nthe classification  must be  based on  rational grounds i.e.
\ngrounds germane\t to carry  out the  policy or the purpose of
\nthe Act\t and by\t way of\t illustration the Court has in terms
\nstated that  if such  exemption were to be granted in favour
\nof  all\t buildings  belonging  to  charities,  religious  or
\nsecular, such classification would be reasonable and proper,
\nbeing based on intelligible differential having nexus to the
\nobject sought  to be  achieved by  the exercise\t of power of
\nexemption. Even otherwise, the State Govt. in their counter-
\naffidavit  dated   10th\t February,  1981  and  supplementary
\ncounter-affidavit dated\t 24th September, 1983 have furnished
\nmaterial on  the basis of which it has sought to justify the
\nsaid exemption\tand it has been urged that the same conforms
\nto  and\t falls\twithin\tthe  guidelines\t indicated  in\tthat
\ndecision  governing   the  exercise   of  the\tpower.\t The
\nrespondents have  further sought  to justify  the  grant  of
\ntotal exemption mainly on the basis that the freedom (right)
\nto recover  the reasonable market rent\twould be ineffective
\nwithout the freedom to evict the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
      As regards the attack directed against s.29 of the Act
\nitself we  would like  to observe  at the outset that though
\nthe challenge to the
\n\t (1) [1962] 2 SCR 269.\n<\/p>\n
405<\/span><\/p>\n
section under Art. 14 has been made in the petitions and the
\nappeals A  Counsel appearing  for the  petitioners  and\t the
\nappellants fairly stated before us, and in our view rightly,
\nthat in\t view of  the decision\tof the Constitution Bench of
\nthis Court  in P.  J. Irani’s  case (supra)  dealing with an
\nidentical  provision   contained  in   the  earlier   Madras
\nenactment (Madras  Act XXV  of 1949) the challenge cannot be
\nsustained. Section  13 of  the Madras  Act XXV\tof 1949 with
\nwhich this Court was concerned in that case ran thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t     “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act
\n     the State\tGovernment may by a notification in the Fort
\n     St. George\t Gazette exempt\t any building  or  class  of
\n     buildings from  all or  any of  the provisions  of this
\n     Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      This  Court upheld the constitutional validity of that
\nprovision in   the  context of\tthe challenge  thereto under
\nArt. 14\t on the\t basis that sufficient guidance was afforded
\nby the\tPreamble and the operative provisions of the Act for
\nthe exercise  of  the  discretionary  power  vested  in\t the
\nGovernment  in\tthe  matter  of\t granting  exemptions  to  a
\nbuilding or  class of  buildings from  all  or\tany  of\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act.\t It may be stated that following the
\nsaid decision  this Court  in the  case of  State of  Madhya
\nPradesh v.  Kanhaiyalal<\/a>(l) did\tnot find any infirmity in s.
\n3(2) of\t the Madhya  Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961
\n(Act 41 of 1961) which ran thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t   “The\t Government may, by notification exempt from
\n     all  or   any  of\t the  provisions  of  this  Act\t any
\n     accommodation  which   is\towned  by  any\teducational,
\n     religions or  charitable institution  or by any nursing
\n     or maternity home, the whole of the income derived from
\n     which is  utilised for that institution or nursing home
\n     or maternity home.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ‘the  challenge to s. 29 of the instant Act, which was
\nnot pressed, has therefore to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
      Even so, since the Notification dated 16th August 1976
\nissued under s. 29 has been challenged the guidance afforded
\nby the Preamble and the operative provisions of the Act will
\nhave a\tbearing on  the\t question  Whether  this  particular
\nexercise of  the power conforms to such guidance or not and,
\ntherefore, it  will be\tuseful\tto  advert  briefly  to\t the
\nguidance so  afforded. At  the outset we would like to point
\nout that the rationable behind the conferal of such power to
\n     (1) [1970] IS M.P.L.J. 973
\n406<\/span>
\ngrant  exemptions  or  to  make\t exceptions  has  been\tvery
\nsuccinetly elucidated  by the  American Supreme Court in the
\nleading case  of Gorieb\t v. Fox.  (1) In that case the Court
\nwas  concerned\twith  an  Ordinance  which  related  to\t the
\nestablishment of  a building  line on  public streets but it
\ncontained a reservation of power in the City Council to make
\nexceptions and\tpermit the  erection of\t buildings closer to
\nthe street.  It was contended that this reservation rendered
\nthe Ordinance invalid as denying the equal protection of the
\nlaws, Negativing  the contention  Sutherland J. speaking for
\nthe court, observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t   “The\t proviso under\twhich the Council acted also
\n     is attacked as violating the equal protection clause on
\n     the  ground  that\tsuch  proviso  enables\tthe  Council
\n     unfairly to  discriminate between\tlot-owners by fixing
\n     unequal distances\tfrom the  street for the erection of
\n     buildings\t of    the   same   character\tunder\tlike
\n     circumstances.. The proviso evidently proceeds upon the
\n     consideration that\t an inflexible\tapplication  of\t the
\n     Ordinance\tmay   under  some  circumstances  result  in
\n     unnecessary hardship  In laying  down a  general  rule,
\n     such as  the one  with which we are here concerned, the
\n     practical impossibility  of anticipating in advance and
\n     provi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ding in\t specific terms for every exceptional case which may
\narise, is  apparent. And yet the inclusion of such cases may
\nwell  result   in  great  and  needless\t hardship,  entirely
\ndisproportionate to  the  good\twhich  will  result  from  a
\nliteral enforcement  of the  general rule.  Hence the wisdom
\nand necessity  here of\treserving the authority to determine
\nwhether, in  specific cases  of need, exceptions may be made
\nwithout subverting the general purposes of the ordinance. We
\nthink it entirely plain that the reservation of authority in
\nthe present  ordinance to deal in a special manner with such
\nexceptional  cases   is\t  unassailable\t on   constitutional
\ngrounds.”\n<\/p>\n
     In our  view the  same  rationale\tmust  apply  to\t the
\nconferal of  such power\t on the\t State Government  to  grant
\nexemptions or to make exceptions even in cases of beneficial
\nlegislations like  the present\tenactment. In  the matter of
\nbeneficial legislations\t also there are bound to be cases in
\nwhich an  inflexible application  of the  provisions of\t the
\nenactment may result in unnecessary and undue hard-\n<\/p>\n
     (1) [1926] 71 Las Ed. 1228 at 1230.\n<\/p>\n
407<\/span><\/p>\n
ship not  contemplated by  the\tlegislature.  Obviously\t the
\npower to  grant exemptions  under s.  29 of the Act 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  may   real  it  from  uniform
\napplication  of\t such  provisions  to  cases  which  deserve
\ndifferent treatment. Of course, as observed by this Court in
\nP. J.  Irani’s case (supra) the power has to be exercised in
\naccordance with\t the policy  and  object  Or  the  enactment
\ngatherable from\t the  preamble\tas  well  as  its  operative
\nprovisions or  as said\tin  the\t American  decision  without
\nsubverting the general purposes of the enactment.\n<\/p>\n
      As  the preamble\tof the\tinstant Act  shows the three
\npurposes, to  achieve which it has been enacted are the same
\nas those  under the earlier enactment, the Madras Act XXV of
\n1949, namely,  (1) the\tregulation of letting of residential
\nand non-residential  buildings, (2)  the control of rents of
\nsuch buildings,\t and  (3)  the\tprevention  of\tunreasonable
\neviction of  tenants from  such buildings,  except that\t the
\nenactment is  of a  comprehensive nature  by way of amending
\nand consolidating  the rent-control  law  obtaining  in\t the
\nState till  then Unquestionably\t it is a piece of beneficial
\nlegislation intended to remedy the two evils of rack-renting
\n(exaction of  exhorbitant rents)  and unreasonable  eviction
\ngenerated by  large scale  of influx  of population  to\t big
\ncities and  urban areas\t in the post Second World War period
\ncreating acute\tshortage of  accommodation in such areas and
\nthe enactment  avowedly protects  the rights  of tenants  in
\noccupation of  buildings in  such areas\t from being  charged
\nunreasonable  rents  and  from\tbeing  unreasonably  evicted
\ntherefore; it  further protects\t their possession even after
\nthe  determination   of\t their\t contractual  tenancies\t  by
\nenlarging the  definition of  a ‘tenant’  so as\t to  include
\npersons\t who   have  held  over\t after\tsuch  determination.
\nSections 3 and 3-A deal with the regulation of letting while
\nss.4 to\t 8 effectuate the objective of controlling the rents
\nand ss.l0  and 14  to 16  confine eviction  of a  tenant  to
\nstated grounds\tsubject\t to  certain  terms,  qualifications
\nand\/or reservations thereby preventing unreasonable eviction
\nIn other  words a  landlord’s freedom  of contract to charge
\neven the  market rent  (if it is in excess of ‘fair rent’ as
\ndefined) and  his freedom  to  evict  a\t tenant\t on  several
\ngrounds available  to him either nuder his lease-deed or the
\nTransfer of  Property Act have been curtailed to a large and
\nsubstantial extent.  At the same time the enactment contains
\nother  significant   provisions\t which\t indicate  that\t the
\nlegislature itself  felt that there might be areas and cases
\nwhere the  two evils  were neither prevalent nor apprehended
\nand as such the landlord’s
\n408<\/span>
\nfreedom need  not be  curtailed at  all, as also cases where
\nattenuated freedom  could be  allowed to  the  landlord\t and
\nlimited protection  be extended to the tenant. not instance,
\nunder s.1  (2) (a)  (i) of  the Act itself does not apply to
\nthe entire State but only to the city of Madras, the city of
\nMadurai and  to all  Municipalities  (i.e  Municipal  areas)
\nwhich shows that non-urban areas or rural areas are excluded
\nfrom   the operation  of the Act, presumably because in such
\nareas the evils of rack-renting and unreasonable eviction do
\nnot obtain;  and under\tthe proviso  there to power has been
\nreserved to  the Government  to withdraw  the application of
\nthe Act\t to any\t municipal areas or to the city of Madras or
\nto the\tcity of\t Madurai from such date as may\tbe mentioned
\nin the\tnotification as\t also to reintroduce the Act in such
\nareas where  it\t has  ceased  to  apply\t by  reason  of\t the
\nnotification issued  under the\tproviso; similarly,  s.1 (2)\n<\/p>\n
(c) confers  powers on the Government to apply all or any of
\nthe provisions\tof the Act by notification to any other area
\nin  the\t state\tto  which  it  has  not\t already  been\tmade
\napplicable by  the Act\titself and  to cancel  or modify any
\nsuch notification.  Again by  the proviso  to s.10  (1)\t the
\nrestrictions imposed  by ss.10 and 14 to 16 (which enumerate
\nthe grounds and the circumstances under which alone eviction
\ncan be\tsought under the Act) have been made inapplicable to
\ntenants\t in   buildings\t of   which  the   landlord  is\t the
\nGovernment. Similarly,\tunder s.10  (3)\t (b)  a\t much  wider
\nlatitude to  evict a  tenant is\t afforded  to  landlords  of
\nreligious,   charitable,   educational\t or   other   public
\ninstitutions if\t  possession is required for the purposes of
\nsuch institutions,  inasmuch as, unlike in the cases falling
\nunder  s.  10  (3)(a)  (i)  (ii)  and  (iii),  there  is  no
\ninsistence that\t such landlords\t should not be occupying any
\nother building\tof his\town in\tthe city,  town\t or  village
\nconcerned. In  other words the legislature itself has made a
\nrational classification of buildings belonging to Government
\nand   buildings\t   belonging   to   religious,\t charitable,
\neducational and\t other public institutions and the different
\ntreatment accorded  to such  buildings obviously proceeds on
\nthe well-founded  assumption that  the Government as well as
\nthe landlords  of such\tbuildings are  not expected  to\t and
\nwould not  indulge in rack-renting or unreasonable eviction.
\nThese and  similar other provisons crystalize the policy and
\npurposes of the Act and furnish the requisite guidance which
\ncan legitimately  govern the  exercise of  power confered on
\nthe State  Government under  s 29  of the  Act. The guidance
\nthus afforded  may illustratively  be indicated\t by  stating
\nthat the  power to grant exemptions or make exceptions could
\nbe legitimately\t exercised by  the State Government in areas
\nor cases where the mischief sought to be remedied by the Act
\nis neither
\n409<\/span>
\nprevalent nor  apprehended as  also in\tcases (individual or
\nclass of  A cases) where a uniform or inflexible application
\nof law\tis likely to result in unnecessary or undue hardship
\n(here  to  landlords)  or  in  cases  where  the  beneficial
\nprovison is  likely to\tbe or is being abused by persons for
\nwhom it\t is intended  (here the\t tenants). The\tquestion  is
\nwhether in  issuing the\t Notification dated 16th August 1976
\nthe State  Government has  exercised the power in conformity
\nwith such  guidance and\t the same  is valid as not offending
\nArt. 14 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
      We  have already\tstated\tthat  the  respondents\thave
\ncontended that\tthe question  of constitutional\t validity of
\ngranting exemption  to\tbuildings  belonging  to  charities,
\nreligious  or  secular\tfrom  rent  control  legislation  as
\noffending the  equal protection\t clause of  Art. 14 has been
\nconcluded by  the observations\tmade by\t this Court  in P J.
\nIrani’s case  (supra) while  Counsel for the petitioners and
\nthe appellants\ton the other hand have urged that it is not;
\naccording to  Counsel for the petitioners and the appellants
\nall that  the observations  made by  this Court in that case
\ndecide is  that the classification of buildings belonging to
\nHindu, Christian  and Muslim religious public trusts as also
\nto  public   charitable\t trusts\t  could\t be  regarded  as  a
\nreasonable classification  based on intelligible differentia
\nbut that  test\tof  nexus  which  is  also  required  to  be
\nsatisfied for  purposes of  Art. 14  has not been pronounced
\nupon by\t this  Court  and  this\t aspect\t is  still  open  to
\nargument- We shall proceed on the basis that the question is
\nres  integra   and   consider\twhether\t  the\trespondents,
\nparticularly the  State\t Government  have  furnished  proper
\nmaterial on  the basis of which the exemption granted can be
\njustified.\n<\/p>\n
      lt  cannot  be  disputed\tthat  public  religious\t and
\ncharitable endowments or trusts constitute a well recognised
\ndistnict group\tinasmuch  as  they  not\t only  serve  public
\npurposes but the disbursement of their income is governed by
\nthe  object  with  which  they\tare  created  and  buildings
\nbelonging to such public religious and charitable endowments
\nor trusts  clearly fall into a distinct class different from
\nbuildings owned\t by private  landlords\tand  as\t such  their
\nclassification into  one group\tdone by the State Government
\nwhile issuing  the impugned notification must be regarded as
\nhaving been  based on  an intelligible\tdifferentia. Counsel
\nfor the\t petitioners and the appellants also fairly conceded
\nthat such classification would be a rational one, more so in
\nview of\t the observations  made by this Court in that behalf
\nin P.J.\t Irani’s case  (supra). The  question is whether the
\nsaid classification has any nexus with the object with which
\nthe powers to H
\n410<\/span>
\ngrant  exemptions   has\t been\tconferred  upon\t  the  State
\nGovernment under  s. 29\t of the\t Act. On  this aspect of the
\nmatter before  we go  to the material furnished by the State
\nGovernment on  the basis of which such nexus is sought to be
\nestablished  it\t  will\tbe   useful  to\t  refer\t to  certain
\nobservations made  by this  Court in  the case\tof State  of
\nMadhya Pradesh\tv. Kanhaiya Lal<\/a> (supra) which afford a clear
\nindication as to what kind of material would go to establish
\nsuch nexus,  The facts\tof that\t case were these. Respondent
\nNo. 4  in that\tcase was a public trust registered under the
\nMadhya Pradesh\tPublic Trusts  Act  and\t it  owned  a  house
\nproperty, one  portion whereof was occupied by girls school,
\nthe rest  being let  out to tenants. Since the rents issuing
\nfrom the property were wholly utilised for the pure poses of
\nthe  schools   respondent  No.\t4  became  entitled  to\t get
\nexemption from\tthe provisions\tof the\tM. P.  Accommodation
\nControl Act  under s.  3(2) thereof for that house-property.
\nOn an  application made\t in that  behalf by respondent No. 4
\nthe State  Government granted  the exemption  by  issuing  a
\nnotification under  that  provision.  The  notification\t was
\nchallenged on two grounds, (i) that s. 3 (2) was void on the
\nground of  the excessive delegation of Legislative powers to
\nthe State  Government; (ii) that the notification itself was
\ndiscriminatory as  the grant of exemption was not germane to
\nthe policy of the Act. The High Court upheld the validity of
\ns.  3\t(2)  but  struck  down\tthe  notification  as  being
\ndiscriminatory. This  Court confirmed  the High Court’s view
\neon both  the points.  While holding the notification bad on
\nthe ground that the exemption granted was not germane to the
\npolicy of the Act this Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t   “In\tthis case  there  is  no  affidavit  by\t any
\n     officer who  had anything to do with the order granting
\n     exemption. The  returns filed  on behalf  of the  State
\n     Government do  not throw any light on this question. It
\n     would appear  that in  granting the exemption the State
\n     applied  merely   a  rule\t of  thumb  and\t issued\t the
\n     notification on the basis of the assertion by the trust
\n     that the  entire rental  income from  the property\t was
\n     being applied to meet the expenses of the trust. Such a
\n     statement\ton   allows  an\t institution  to  apply\t for
\n     exemption. It  was not  the case of the trust that they
\n     wanted to\tevict the  tenants because  they wanted\t the
\n     whole of the accommodation itself nor was it their plea
\n     that the income according to them was very low compared
\n     to prevailing  rates of  rent and\tthat it\t was  wholly
\n     inadequate for  meeting the  expenses of  the trust. If
\n     grounds like these or other relevant grounds had
\n411<\/span>
\n     been alleged  it would  have been\topen  to  the  State
\n     Government to  consider the  same\tand  pass  an  order
\n     thereon. In our view the State Government did not apply
\n     its mind  which it\t was required  to do  under the\t Act
\n     before issuing  a notification  and the return does not
\n     disclose any  ground which\t was germane to the purposes
\n     of the  Act to  support  the  claim  for  exemption  .”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (Emphasis supplied)
\n     The above\tobservations clearly  indicate what  kind of
\nmaterial the  State Government\tis  required  to  take\tinto
\nconsideration which  would justify the grant of an exemption
\nin  favour   of\t a  particular\till  building  or  class  of
\nbuildings. C
\n     Coming  to\t  the  material\t  furnished  by\t  the  State
\nGovernment on  the basis  of which the impugned exemption is
\nsought to  be justified it may be stated that in paragraph 4
\nof  its\t  Counter  Affidavit   dated   10.2.1981   Shri\t  J.
\nRamachandran, Joint  Secretary, Home Department, has stated:
\nD
\n\t  “The prime object behind the grant of exemption to
\n     the buildings belonging to religious institutions is to
\n     enable J  the institutions\t to get\t enhanced income  by
\n     increasing their  rents. The  buildings were endowed to
\n     the public religious and charitable trusts for carrying
\n     out certain  religious or charitable purposes. With the
\n     escalation of  prices,  the  religious  and  charitable
\n     trusts  are   not\tin  a  position\t to  carry  out\t the
\n     endowment, if  the income\tof the\tproperty  is  not  –
\n     increased suitably\t and  this  nullifies  the  specific
\n     purpose of endowment.”\n<\/p>\n
In para 13 the deponent has further stated:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “As stated  already, numerous representations were
\n     made to  the Government about the plight of the temples
\n     and the  public charities\tlike poor  feeding, etc. and
\n     the ridiculous  position which  is prevailing,  and the
\n     Government on a consideration of all the aspects of the
\n     matter was\t fully satisfied  that the tenants are fully
\n     exploiting the  situation and  the fixation  of a\tfair
\n     rent under\t the Rent Control Act is no criterion at all
\n     and that it would cause immense in justice and would be
\n     highly oppressive\tso  far\t as  temples  and  religious
\n     endowments and  public charities  are concerned.  lt is
\n     only in the context of such a serious predicament and
\n412<\/span>
\n     critical situation\t that the  Government intervened and
\n     issued the\t notification under  s. 29  of\tthe  Act  to
\n     relieve the hard ship and injustice.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      It  has also  been pointed  out that the procedure and
\nmachinery indicated  in s.  4 of  the Act  and the concerned
\nRules for fixing fair  rent only yields on the total cost of
\nthe building  together with  the market value of the site, a
\ngross return  of 9 per cent for residential buildings and 12
\nper cent  for non-residential buildings which is very low as
\ncompared to the bank rate of interest and grossly inadequate
\nwhen compared  to the  reasonable rents\t at the\t market rate
\nobtaining in  the locality  or the neighbourhood (i.e., rent
\nwhich a\t willing land  lord will charge to a willing tenant)
\nand it\twas a  case of\tthe tenants  of all  such  buildings
\nexploiting  the\t  situation  arising   from  the  beneficial
\nprovisions  of\t the  Act.   In\t the  supplementary  counter
\naffidavit dated the 24th September 1983, Shri N. Srinivasan,
\nDeputy\tSecretary.   Home  Department,\t has   categorically
\nasserted that  “in all\tthese  cases\tthe  Government\t was
\nsatisfied that\tthe rent  paid by  the tenants was very low,
\nmeager and  that the  previsions of  fixation of  fair\trent
\nunder the  Act would  not meet\tthe ends  of justice and the
\nsituation will\tstill continue\tin which  the tenant will be
\nexploiting the\tsituation and the helplessness of the public
\nreligious trusts  and  charitable  institutions”  and  that,
\ntherefore, the Government felt that it was
\n necessary to withdraw the protection given under the Act to
\nthe tenants of such buildings.\n<\/p>\n
      It  may be stated that no rejoinder affidavit has been
\nfiled on  behalf of  the writ  petitioners or the appellants
\nand as\tsuch the  before said  material furnished by the two
\ncounter affidavits  and the averments made therein have gone
\nunchallenged. In  our view,  the aforesaid  material clearly
\nshows that  buildings belonging to such public religious and
\ncharitable endowments  or trusts  clearly fell\tinto a class
\nwhere undue  hardship and  injustice resulting\tto them from
\nthe uniform  application of the beneficial provisions of the
\nAct needed  to be  relieved and\t the exemption\tgranted will
\nhave to\t be regarded  as being\t germane  to the  policy and
\npurpose of  the Act.  In other words the classification made
\nhas a  clear nexus  with the  object with which the power to
\ngrant exemption has been conferred upon the State Government
\nunder s. 29 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      It  may be stated that counsel for the petitioners and
\nthe apple  lands during\t the course  of the  hearing  placed
\nreliance upon a decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan
\nv. Mukanchand and Others<\/a>(l)
\n\t (1) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 903.\n<\/p>\n
413<\/span><\/p>\n
where the  impugned part  of s.\t 2(c) of the Jagirdar’s Debt
\nReduction A  Act (Rajasthan  Act 9  of 1937)  was held to be
\nviolative of Article 14 on the ground that the test of nexus
\nbetween the  classification made and the object sought to be
\nachieved by  the statute in question had not been satisfied.
\nThe ratio  of the  decision  was  that\tJagirs\thaving\tbeen
\ndeprived of their lands were entitled to the benefits of the
\nAct  providing\tfor  reduction\tof  debts  and\tit  made  no
\ndifference whether  the debts were owed to the Government or
\nlocal authority\t or other  bodies mentioned  in the impugned
\npart of\t s. 2(e)  of the  Act and  such\t debts\tdue  to\t the
\nGovernment, local  authority and  other bodies\tcould not be
\nexcluded while\tgranting the  benefit of reduction of debts.
\nThe ratio, in our view, is clearly inapplicable to the facts
\nof the\tinstant\t case  inasmuch\t as  we\t have  come  to\t the
\nconclusion that\t the classification of buildings made in the
\nimpugned notification has a clear nexus with the object with
\nwhich the  power to  grant exemption has been conferred upon
\nthe State Government.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  next contended  that  If  the  main  object  of
\ngranting  exemption   to  buildings   belonging\t to   public
\nreligious institutions\tor public  charities was  to  enable
\nthese institutions  to augment\ttheir income  by  increasing
\nrentals of  their buildings  such  object  could  have\tbeen
\nachieved by  granting exemption from these provisions of the
\nAct which  deal with the controlling of rents (ss 4 to 8 and
\nthe Rules made in that behalf) but a total exemption granted
\nto them\t from all  the provisions  of the  Act\tparticularly
\nthose which prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants must be
\nregarded as  excessive and  unwarranted. And  in this behalf
\ncounsel for the petitioners and the appellants referred to a
\nSaurashtra Notification\t No. AB\/15(17)\/54-55  dated the 27th
\nDecember, 1954\tissued by  the State Government under s.4(3)
\nof the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1954 where under partial
\nexemptions p from changing only the standard rent subject to
\ncertain conditions  was granted\t to buildings  belonging  to
\npublic trusts  for religious  and charitable purpose. It was
\npointed\t out   that  the   Notification\t provided  that\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act except provisions in ss 23, 24 and 25
\nshall not,  subject to conditions and terms specified in the
\nschedule thereto  apply to  such buildings and term No. l in
\nschedule A  stated that\t no tenant  of such premises to whom
\nthe same  has been  leased on  or before 30th December, 1948
\nshall be evicted provided such tenant agrees to increase the
\nmonthly rent paid by him immediately before the said date by
\n50 per\tcent and  does not  allow, except for valid reasons,
\nthe rent  amount due  at any time to run in arrears for more
\nthan two  consecutive months.” In other words the Saurashtra
\nNotification was relied upon as an illustration where
\n414<\/span>
\npartial exemption  from the  provisions of  the Rent Control
\nenactment subject  to terms and conditions could be granted.
\nThus counsel  urged that  similarly in\tthe instant case the
\nState Government  of Tamil  Nadu could\thave  given  partial
\nexemption  to\tbuildings  belonging   to  public  religious
\ninstitutions and  public charities  only in  the matter\t  of
\n‘fair rent’  and need  not have\t taken away  the  protection
\navailable  to\tthe  tenants   under  the  provisions  which
\nprevented unreasonable eviction.\n<\/p>\n
      In  our view  there is no substance in the contention.
\nIt cannot  be  disputed\t that  the  two\t objectives  of\t the
\nenactment,  namely,   to  control   rents  and\t to  prevent
\nunreasonable eviction  are interrelated\t and the  provisions
\nwhich subserve these objectives supplement each other. Tn P.
\nJ. Irani’s  case (supra),  Sarkar, J,  has also\t observed at
\npage 193  of the  Report that “the purpose of the Act, quite
\nclearly, is  to prevent\t unreasonable eviction\tand also  to
\ncontrol rent.  These two  purpose are  intertwined.”  it  is
\nobvious that if the trustees of the  public religious trusts
\nand public  charities are  to be given freedom to charge the
\nnormal market  rent then  to make  that freedom effective it
\nwill be\t necessary to  arm the\ttrustees with  the right  to
\nevict the  tenants for\tnon-payment of such market rent. The
\nState  Government   on\tmaterial   before  it  came  to\t the
\nconclusion that\t the ‘fair  ‘rent’ fixed  under the  Act was
\nunjust in case of such buildings and it was
\n necessary  to permit  the trustees  of\t such  buildings  to
\nrecover from  their tenants  reasonable market\trent and  if
\nthat be\t so non-eviction  when reasonable market rent is not
\npaid would be unreasonable and if the market rent is paid by
\nthe tenants  no trustee\t is going  to  evict  them.  It\t is,
\ntherefore, clear  that granting\t total exemption  cannot  be
\nregarded as excessive or unwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
     Apart from\t this aspect of the matter it is conceivable
\nthat  trustees\t of  buildings\t belonging  to\tsuch  public
\nreligious  institutions\t  or  public  charities\t may  desire
\neviction of  their tenants  for the  purpose of carrying out
\nmajor  or   substantial\t repairs   or  for  the\t purpose  of
\ndemolition and\treconstruction and  the State Government may
\nhave felt that the trustees of such buildings should be able
\nto effect  evictions without  being required to fulfil other
\nonerous conditions  which must\tbe complied  with by private
\nlandlords when\tthey seek evictions for such purpose. In our
\nview,  therefore,   the\t total\texemption  granted  to\tsuch
\nbuildings  under  the  impugned\t notification  is  perfectly
\njustified.\n<\/p>\n
      The  reliance on Saurashtra Notification, in our view,
\nwould be  of no\t avail to the petitioners or the appellants.
\nThe manner in
\n415<\/span>
\nwhich exemption\t from  rent  control  provisions  should  be
\ngranted,   whether it could be partial or total and if so on
\nwhat terms  and conditions  would be  matters for each State
\nGovernment  to\tdecide\tin  the\t light\tof  the\t scheme\t and
\nprovisions of  the concerned  enactment and  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances touching\tthe classification  made. And if the
\nState of  Madras has thought fit to grant the exemption in a
\nparticular manner  by the  impugned notification  it will be
\ndifficult  to find fault with it if the exemption so granted
\nis not\tillegal or  unconstitutional. It will be interesting
\nto note that even under the Saurashtra Notification the term
\nor condition  contained in  Schedule ‘A’  thereto also makes
\nthe position clear that eviction may follow if the permitted
\nenhanced rent  is not paid or allowed to fall in arrears for
\ntwo consecutive\t months by  the\t tenant\t of  such  buildings
\nbelonging to public religious or charitable trusts.
\nIn the\tresult the  challenge to impugned notification fails
\nand the\t writ petitions and the civil appeals are dismissed.
\nAll interim  orders, if\t any, are  vacated. where will be no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S. R.\t\t\t      Petition and Appeals dismissed\n416<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 257, 1985 SCR (2) 398 Author: V Tulzapurkar Bench: Tulzapurkar, V.D. PETITIONER: S. KANDASWAMY CHETTIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/12\/1984 BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. PATHAK, […]<\/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-64990","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984 - 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\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984\" \/>\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=\"1984-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-21T05:58:00+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=\"37 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T05:58:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984\"},\"wordCount\":5837,\"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\\\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984\",\"name\":\"S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-21T05:58:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984\"}]},{\"@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":"S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984 - 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\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-21T05:58:00+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":"37 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984","datePublished":"1984-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T05:58:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984"},"wordCount":5837,"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\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984","name":"S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-21T05:58:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-kandaswamy-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-12-december-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Kandaswamy Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 12 December, 1984"}]},{"@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\/64990","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=64990"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64990\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64990"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64990"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64990"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}