Summary
The Court rejected the constitutional challenge to Punjab’s special summary eviction law for religious premises. Religious institutions and their tenants could form a distinct class linked to preserving institutional property and public purposes. Existing rent protection did not prevent the legislature adopting a later special regime. Valid subsisting leases, grants and allotments remained protected; mere rent payment did not establish authorised occupation. Notice, hearing, appeal and judicial review safeguarded application of the law.
Issues
- Whether the separate eviction regime for premises of religious institutions violated equality or impermissibly withdrew existing rent protection.
- Whether the definition of unauthorised occupation and the rent-payment explanation were constitutionally objectionable.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(d), 2(e) and 3, including Explanation, Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997The defined class of religious institutions and premises was ascertainable, and subsisting valid occupation remained protected; rent alone was not determinative. (¶¶ 9, 20)
Held
- The legislature could enact distinct tenancy regimes serving different objectives. Religious institutions’ properties and their tenants formed a rational class connected with institutional and public purposes, consistent with the precedents on exemptions from rent laws. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)
- The later special religious-premises enactment could prevail over the earlier rent-control regime for its subject matter. Rent legislation did not create immutable protection against legislative change. (¶¶ 8, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- A person holding a valid subsisting allotment, lease or grant was not an unauthorised occupant. Determination, expiry or breach of the governing terms could bring occupation within the statute. Mere rent payment did not conclusively establish an authorised tenancy. (¶¶ 9, 20)
- Eviction required notice, consideration of evidence, a reasonable hearing and a reasoned finding of unauthorised occupation. Appeal to the Commissioner and High Court judicial review remained available. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. (¶¶ 10, 20, 21)
Result
Appeal dismissed, maintaining rejection of the constitutional challenge. No order as to costs.