Summary
Tenants challenged the special summary eviction remedy for non-resident Indian landlords and its extension to Chandigarh. The Supreme Court upheld the provision, Punjab’s legislative competence and the extension notification. Genuine need, five years’ ownership and restrictions on subsequent dealings safeguarded tenants. Leave to defend requires a reasonable, well-grounded triable defence, not proof beyond doubt.
Issues
- Whether extension of the amended rent law to Chandigarh involved excessive delegation.
- Whether Punjab could legislate concerning non-resident Indian landlords.
- Whether the classification and summary eviction procedure were arbitrary or denied tenants a meaningful defence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(dd), 13-B and 19(2-B), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949The special remedy was upheld with its requirements of qualifying status, genuine need and prior ownership, and safeguards against misuse after possession. (¶¶ 3, 29, 34, 35, 36, 43, 44, 45)
- Section 18-A(4), (5), (6) and (8), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949Leave to defend and High Court revision provided safeguards within the expedited procedure. A triable, well-grounded defence suffices for leave. (¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 36)
- Section 87, Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966The extension of the amendment to Chandigarh was permissible conditional legislation consistent with the established policy of extension. (¶¶ 4, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Held
- The 9 October 2009 notification validly extended the amendment to Chandigarh. The challenge based on excessive delegation and separation of powers failed. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- In pith and substance the amendment regulated landlord-tenant relations for housing and accommodation within the Concurrent List. Its treatment of non-resident landlords did not create repugnancy with central citizenship or foreign-exchange legislation. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Genuine need is required. The presumption favouring the landlord is not conclusive; leave to defend follows a reasonable, well-grounded triable challenge to the statutory requirements, without requiring proof beyond doubt at that stage. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36)
- The special classification and procedure withstand the equality challenge because the remedy serves the needs of returning non-resident landlords and is constrained by statutory conditions and safeguards. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
Result
Tenants’ appeals dismissed without costs. Section 13-B and its extension to Chandigarh were upheld. The Court declined to interfere with the factual findings in the individual cases and addressed the legal challenges.