Allahabad High Court
Nand Kishore Gosaeen And Others vs State Of U. P. And Others on 17 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)AWC3085, 2000 ALL. L. J. 161, 2000 A I H C 1329, (1999) 4 ALL WC 3085, (1999) 37 ALL LR 255, (1999) 2 ALL RENTCAS 483, 1999 ALL CJ 2 1349
JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 2(bb) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short the Act) which was inserted by U. P. Amending Act No. 5 of 1995.
2. The petitioners are tenants of Shri Krishna Janarn Asthan Sewa Sansthan, respondent No. 2, registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860. It filed 14 suits in the year 1988 for ejectment of the petitioners after terminating their tenancy. During the pendency of the suit the Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Amendment Ordinance, 1994 was promulgated whereby clause (bb) was added under subsection (i) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 2 of the Act grants exemption to certain buildings from operation of the Act. In view of insertion of clause (bb), the buildings belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institutions shall also be excluded. Respondent No. 2 filed application for amendment of the plaint claiming the benefit of the exemption in view of the addition of clause (bb) in Section 2 of the Act. The petitioners have challenged the validity of this provision on the ground that the provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Clauses (bb) and (bbb) were added in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act by the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Amendment Ordinance. 1994 which read as under :
"2. Exemptions from operation of Act.--(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to (the following, namely) :
(bb) any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institution ;
(bbb) any building belonging to or vested in a Waqf including a waqf-alal-aulad;
Sub-section (3) of Section 2 was deleted. This Ordinance was replaced by the Uttar Pradesh (Amendment) Act No. 5 of 1995.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are being treated unequally as regards other tenants. A tenant under the provisions of the Act is entitled to protection from eviction by the landlord on termination of tenancy and secondly, the fixation of rent is controlled by the provisions of the Act but the petitioners are being deprived of such benefit merely because the building belongs either to public charitable Institution or public religious Institution.
5. The distinction between public charitable or public religious institutions or other class of landlords forms separate categories. The money which is realised as rent is to be utilised by the landlord either for public charitable purpose or for public religious Institutions, while in case of other landlords, it may be utilised for their personal purposes. Section 3 (r) defines charitable institutions and Section 3 (s) defines religious institutions as follows :
"3. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires--
.....
(r) 'charitable institution" means any establishment, undertaking, organisation or association formed for a charitable purpose and includes a specific endowment ;
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause the words "charitable purpose" includes relief of poverty, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of utility or welfare to the general public or any section thereof, not being an object of an exclusively religious nature :
(s) "religious institution" means a temple, math, mosque, church, gurudwara or any other place of public worship;....."
The legislation has further made it clear that such exemption is applicable only to the institution which is of a public character either charitable institution or religious Institution.
6. It is settled principle of law that a classification can be made but it should have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The distinction between two categories of persons, namely, the personal property of individuals and those belonging to public religious or charitable institutions was considered in S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 1985 (1) SCC 290, The facts of this case were that Section 29 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 'conferred the power on the Government to exempt a building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of the Act. The State Government in pursuance of this provision Issued notification whereby it exempted all buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trust and public charitable trust from all the provisions of the said Act. The tenants challenged the aforesaid notification on two grounds firstly, that the power conferred to the State Government was unguided and secondly, it was discriminatory and offending against the equal protection of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court repelled both the contentions. The Court observed :
"It cannot be disputed that public religious and charitable endowments or trusts constitute a well recognised distinct group inasmuch as they not only serve public purposes but the disbursement of their income is governed by the objects with which they are created and buildings belonging to such public religious and charitable endowments or trusts clearly fall into a distinct class different from buildings owned by private landlords and as such their classification into one group done by the State Government while Issuing the impugned notification must be regarded as having been based on an intelligible differentia."
The Supreme Court approved the decision of the case State of M. P. v. Kanhaiya Lal, 1970 MPLJ 973, wherein the State Government granted exemption by issuing notification under Section 3 (2) of M. P. Accommodation Control Act. One of the grounds of challenge was that the notification was discriminatory as the grant of exemption was not germane to the policy of the Act. The High Court upheld the validity of Section 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that the policy to exempt religious pubic trust was valid but struck down the notification considering the facts of that case.
7. The object underlying clause (bb) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act clearly indicates that the classification of two distinct kinds of buildings has a reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved and, therefore, this provision is not discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.
8. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules. 1972. provides that before an order of exemption under Section 2 (3) is passed, the sitting tenant, if any, shall be given an opportunity of making representation against the proposed order but now the property is being exempted without giving an opportunity of hearing. This submission no longer subsists after deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act by U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act conferred power on the State Government to exempt from all or any of the provisions of the Act any building which was owned by a public charitable or public religious institution by a notice. Rule 3 was framed laying down the procedure to be followed while exercising the power by the State Government for exemption under this provision. As this provision has been deleted. Rule 3 of the Rules 1972 has become redundant. The tenant can if he is sought to be evicted in any suit or proceeding wherein the landlord claims the exemption from the operation of the Act under clause (bb) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, he can raise, an objection that the building does not belong or vest in public charitable or public religious institution and to prove this version he can also lead the evidence. The tenant has not been deprived of any opportunity of hearing in that respect.
9. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.