TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Invalidates Chandigarh Notification Exempting High-Rent Buildings from Tenant Protection Law.</h1> <h3>Vasu Dev Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> Vasu Dev Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 535, 2006 (12) SCC 753, 2006 (11) SCALE 108 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notification dated 07.11.2002 issued by the Administrator of Chandigarh.2. Legislative policy and its adherence.3. Scope of delegated legislation versus conditional legislation.4. Judicial review of delegated legislation.5. Classification for exclusion of buildings based on rental value.6. Impact of National Housing Policy on the notification.7. Role of the executive versus the legislature in amending laws.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Notification Dated 07.11.2002:The appellants, tenants in Chandigarh, challenged the notification exempting buildings with monthly rent exceeding Rs. 1,500 from the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. They contended that the notification was ultra vires the legislative policy and the Act. The Supreme Court held that the Administrator could not issue a notification with a permanent impact that effectively repealed the Act's provisions. The notification was deemed invalid as it did not conform to the legislative policy and exceeded the scope of delegated legislation.2. Legislative Policy and Its Adherence:The legislative policy of the Rent Act aimed to protect tenants from unfair rent increases and eviction. The preamble, core provisions, and the historical context of the Act emphasized tenant protection. The Supreme Court noted that the Administrator's notification contradicted this policy by removing protections for a significant class of tenants, thus altering the Act's essential features, which only the legislature could do.3. Scope of Delegated Legislation Versus Conditional Legislation:The Court distinguished between conditional legislation, where the executive determines the application of a complete law, and delegated legislation, where the executive is given rule-making power within the framework of the Act. The notification in question was deemed to be delegated legislation, not conditional, and thus had to adhere strictly to the legislative policy and framework of the Act.4. Judicial Review of Delegated Legislation:The Court emphasized that delegated legislation is subject to judicial review, particularly when it involves granting exemptions from a statute. The review ensures that the executive's actions are within the scope of their delegated authority and adhere to the legislative policy. The notification was struck down as it failed to meet these criteria.5. Classification for Exclusion of Buildings Based on Rental Value:The classification of buildings based on rental value for exemption must have a reasonable basis and align with the legislative policy. The Court found that the Rs. 1,500 threshold was arbitrary and not based on any relevant data or study. It resulted in a significant number of tenants losing protection, which was contrary to the Act's intent.6. Impact of National Housing Policy on the Notification:The National Housing Policy recommended amendments to rent control laws to balance landlord and tenant interests. However, the Court held that such changes should be made through legislative amendments, not executive notifications. The Administrator's reliance on the National Housing Policy to justify the notification was misplaced, as it did not align with the legislative policy of the Rent Act.7. Role of the Executive Versus the Legislature in Amending Laws:The Court reiterated that only the legislature has the power to amend or repeal laws. The executive cannot change the fundamental features of a statute through delegated legislation. The Administrator's notification was seen as an overreach of executive power, effectively amending the Act without legislative approval.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and allowed the appeals, declaring the notification dated 07.11.2002 invalid. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legislative policy and the limits of delegated legislation, ensuring that significant changes to laws are made through proper legislative processes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
