HC strikes down provisions of Rent Act
Vijay Arora
Shimla, August 3
The HP High Court has struck down the provision of the HP Urban Rent Control Amended Act whereby it was provided that the tenant evicted on the ground of re-building shall have the right to re-entry on new terms of tenancy, that too, only on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant to the premises in the re-built building equivalent in area to the original premises of which he was a tenant.
A division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir and Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan observed that “the legislature by introducing the right of re-entry on new terms of tenancy, that too, only on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant, has virtually rendered the right of re-entry illusionary. The provision otiose, as it is difficult to comprehend, contemplate and visualise that the tenant and landlord, who have been involved in litigation for decades and would otherwise normally not see each other in eye, would subsequently arrive at a mutual agreement. What if the landlord and tenant fail to arrive at a mutual agreement? There is absolutely no answer to this question to be found in the entire Amended Act.”
It further observed that “The proviso to say the least is totally unworkable as it is absolutely vague, ambiguous besides being arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore we have no difficulty in concluding that the first proviso of clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act is unconstitutional.”
However, the court clarified in its judgment by saying that “Similarly, Section 14 (3) (c) of the Act insofar as it provides for the right of re-entry to the tenant is upheld, while the remaining portion of the proviso being unreasonable, is also struck down and declared unconstitutional.”
Besides the court has also struck down the Section 4 of the Amended Act which prescribes the procedure for determination of standard rent by observing that “we find that no provision for determining the rent upon the locational importance of the premises. We are
conscious of the fact that the value of the site of the premises is only one of the several factors that determine the rent prevalent in a particular place. It alone may not be a single determinative factor, but at the same time, we cannot also undermine the locational benefits of a building.”
It further observed that “ we have no hesitation to conclude that in absence of there being proper norms and guidelines, the procedure as currently provided for determination of standard rent under Section 4 of the Act, is not founded on any intelligible differentia and even otherwise has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. It further fails to pass the test of reasonableness and being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India is thus liable to be struck down as being unconstitutional.
