TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 suffered from excessive delegation or violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by empowering exemption of classes of buildings; (ii) whether the Chief Commissioner of Chandigarh was competent to issue the exemption notifications under section 3 of the Act; (iii) whether the exemption notification dated 31 January 1973, as modified, operated retrospectively so as to cover buildings that had satisfied the relevant conditions before that date.
Issue (i): whether section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 suffered from excessive delegation or violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by empowering exemption of classes of buildings.
Analysis: The power to exempt particular buildings or classes of buildings was upheld as a valid delegated power. The provision was treated as consistent with the legislative scheme of rent control and with the object of encouraging new construction by granting a limited exemption period. The classification between exempted and non-exempted buildings was regarded as having a rational nexus with the statutory purpose and not as arbitrary or discriminatory.
Conclusion: Section 3 was held valid and not bad for excessive delegation or for violation of Article 14; the challenge failed.
Issue (ii): whether the Chief Commissioner of Chandigarh was competent to issue the exemption notifications under section 3 of the Act.
Analysis: The Chief Commissioner acted as administrator of the Union Territory under Article 239(1) of the Constitution of India, the President's notification, and the definition of Central Government in the General Clauses Act. The Extension Act also validated prior notifications and actions. On that basis, the power exercised by the Chief Commissioner was treated as legally authorised.
Conclusion: The notifications were held to have been validly issued by a competent authority; the challenge failed.
Issue (iii): whether the exemption notification dated 31 January 1973, as modified, operated retrospectively so as to cover buildings that had satisfied the relevant conditions before that date.
Analysis: The notification was construed according to its language and purpose. Since it was intended to encourage future construction and did not clearly express a retrospective intent, it was held not to withdraw the Act from buildings that had already come within its operation before 31 January 1973. The benefit of exemption was therefore confined to buildings satisfying the stipulated conditions on or after that date.
Conclusion: The notification was held to be prospective only and not retrospective; buildings completing the stated conditions before 31 January 1973 remained subject to the Act.
Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on all substantial grounds, the impugned provisions and notifications were upheld, and the claimed retrospective benefit was denied to pre-existing buildings.
Ratio Decidendi: A delegated exemption under a rent control statute is valid where it advances the statutory object and rests on a rational classification, but it will not be construed retrospectively unless such intent is clearly expressed.
TaxTMI 
