Arbitrary statutory classification and severability under rent control law: obsolete exemption struck down, remaining provisions upheld

Clause (b) of section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which exempted buildings constructed on or after 26 August 1957, was found to create an arbitrary classification once the original incentive for new construction had lost its rational basis; the exemption was therefore unconstitutional under Article 14. Applying severability principles, the invalid exemption could be removed without affecting the remaining rent control provisions, because the rest of the statute was capable of independent operation. The offending clause alone was struck down, while the Act otherwise remained operative.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether clause (b) of section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which exempts buildings constructed on and after 26 August 1957, violated Article 14 of the Constitution. (ii) If the clause was unconstitutional, whether it was severable from the rest of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether clause (b) of section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which exempts buildings constructed on and after 26 August 1957, violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The equality clause permits classification only where there is an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the statute. The exemption was originally justified as an incentive to construction of new buildings, but that justification lost force with the passage of time. The distinction between buildings built before and after the cut-off date had become arbitrary, since many exempted buildings were already more than a decade old and the exemption had become a continuing preference for one class of landlords without a present rational basis.

Conclusion: Clause (b) of section 32 was held to be violative of Article 14 and unconstitutional.

Issue (ii): If the clause was unconstitutional, whether it was severable from the rest of the Act.

Analysis: The invalidity of an exception does not necessarily destroy the parent statute. Applying the settled principles of severability, the remaining provisions of the rent control law were capable of standing and being enforced independently. The legislative purpose of continuing rent control in Andhra Pradesh could still be given effect if the offending exemption alone was removed.

Conclusion: Clause (b) of section 32 was severable and only that clause was struck down, leaving the rest of the Act operative.

Final Conclusion: The impugned exemption ceased to have constitutional support because the incentive-based classification had become obsolete, and the rent control statute continued to operate without the offending exclusion.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory classification valid at inception may become unconstitutional with the passage of time if the original basis for the distinction disappears and the resulting exemption no longer bears a rational nexus to the object of the law; an offending exception may be severed if the remainder of the statute can operate independently.

---