1985 (9) TMI 352 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds constitutionality of Haryana Urban Rent Act provision, rejects retrospective application.

Mohinder Kumar and Ors. Versus State of Haryana and Anr.

The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, as amended, rejecting claims ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.2. Retrospective operation of the amended provision and its impact on vested rights.Summary:Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of Section 1(3)The primary issue in these writ petitions is the constitutional validity of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, as amended by the Amending Act of 1978. The petitioners argue that the provision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They contend that the provision discriminates between buildings constructed before and after the commencement of the Act, thereby creating an invidious distinction between landlords and tenants based on the time of completion of the buildings. The petitioners assert that this classification has no reasonable nexus with the object of the Act, which is to afford protection to tenants.The Court, however, finds no merit in these contentions. It holds that the classification of buildings based on the date of commencement of the Act is rational and has a clear nexus with the object to be achieved, which is to encourage the construction of new buildings to mitigate the hardship of tenants caused by the scarcity of accommodation. The Court refers to previous decisions, including Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Punjab Tin Supply Co. Chandigarh v. Central Government, to support its conclusion that the exemption provided in Section 1(3) is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14.Issue 2: Retrospective Operation and Vested RightsThe petitioners also argue that the amended provision operates retrospectively and seeks to take away their vested rights under the Act. They claim that the tenants had acquired a vested right to be governed by the Act prior to its amendment. The Court rejects this argument, stating that the provision is not retrospective in operation. It clarifies that the provision operates prospectively from the date of its incorporation in the Act by the amendment, even though it applies to buildings completed on or after the commencement of the Act in 1973.The Court further explains that the original provision, which might have been constitutionally invalid due to the indefinite period of exemption, did not confer any vested rights on the tenants. It emphasizes that the Legislature has the authority to remove any defects or lacunae in the law by passing a validating Act, which can be done with retrospective effect, provided it is within the competence of the Legislature.Conclusion:The writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, and its retrospective operation are dismissed. The Court finds that the provision is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 and that it does not operate retrospectively to take away any vested rights of the petitioners. There is no order as to costs.