Unconstitutional amendment void ab initio preserves landlord's right to evict for bona fide personal use in Chandigarh

The Court held that the 1956 amendment deleting a landlord's right to seek eviction from non-residential premises was void under Article 13(2) as unconstitutional under Article 14, so it could not form part of the law later extended to Chandigarh. The Chandigarh Extension Act was read as extending the 1949 Act in its original form, not the amended text, and the statutory fiction in Section 3 was given full effect. On that basis, the landlord retained the right to seek eviction from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, and the eviction challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as extended to Chandigarh, a landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of his own use or bona fide requirement.

Analysis: The Court held that the 1956 amendment deleting the landlord's right to seek eviction from non-residential buildings was void as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, by virtue of Article 13(2), such a law was a still-born law incapable of being noticed for any purpose. The Chandigarh Extension Act, 1974 extended the 1949 Act as it originally stood and the statutory fiction in Section 3 had to be given full effect. The Court further held that the extension was not a case of incorporation of the amended 1956 text, and that the Act had to be read as the 1949 enactment before the unconstitutional amendment. On that reading, the landlord retained the right to seek eviction from a non-residential building on the ground of personal use.

Conclusion: The landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building in Chandigarh on the ground of bona fide requirement, and the challenge to the eviction orders fails.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amendment declared unconstitutional under Article 13(2) is void ab initio and cannot be treated as part of the law extended by a later enactment; the extended original Act continues to govern with the landlord's bona fide requirement as a valid ground of eviction from non-residential premises.

---