Statutory tenancy classification upheld where residential and commercial premises were treated as distinct classes with rational legislative basis.

Section 2(1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, restricting devolution of tenancy rights in residential premises, was upheld as a valid statutory classification. The Court held that residential and commercial tenancies form distinct classes, and the legislature may regulate the nature and extent of post-termination tenant protection where there is intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the legislative object. The restriction was also found to be reasonable, fair, and just, and therefore not arbitrary or unfair. The challenge under Articles 14 and 21 was rejected, and the distinction between residential and commercial premises was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 2(1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which restricts the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of residential premises, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the said restriction infringes Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether Section 2(1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which restricts the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of residential premises, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The protection afforded to a tenant after termination of tenancy is a creation of the statute, and the legislature is competent to determine the nature, extent, and manner of that protection. Residential and commercial tenancies were held to be different classes with distinct incidents. The Court applied the settled test of reasonable classification, requiring an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the object of the law. The distinction drawn by Section 2(1)(iii) was held to reflect the different position of residential premises and to be consistent with the legislative policy.

Conclusion: Section 2(1)(iii) is not violative of Article 14 and is valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the said restriction infringes Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The limitation on inheritance of statutory tenancy in residential premises was held to be reasonable, fair, and just. The Court found that the provision did not make the statutory protection arbitrary or unfair, and the challenge based on the right to shelter was rejected.

Conclusion: Section 2(1)(iii) does not infringe Article 21.

Final Conclusion: The statutory distinction between residential and commercial premises was upheld, and the challenge to the impugned provision failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory classification is constitutionally valid if residential and commercial tenancies are treated differently on the basis of an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the legislative object, and a restriction on statutory tenancy rights will not violate Articles 14 or 21 if it is reasonable and not arbitrary.

---