Bansal Gems Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Ambwani, Actg. C.J.

Shri M.M. Bansal, the Director of M/s. Bansal Gems Pvt. Ltd., petitioner No. 1 and as petitioner No. 2, has appeared in person.

By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a direction for quashing the Notifications dated 15.07.2003 and 25.02.2006, establishing the Rent Control Tribunals, functioning within the State of Rajasthan u/s 19 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short'' the Act of 2001''), as violative of law/established principles of law in the light of the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, and consequently striking down the said provision as well as the said Notifications.

The petitioners have also prayed for issuing a writ, order, or direction to strike down the Rajasthan Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 2005, and to declare it to be unconstitutional. They have also prayed for a direction to strike down the provisions of Section 21(3) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, being Act No. 1 of 2003, declaring the same to be unconstitutional.

By prayer No. (vii), the petitioner has prayed for a direction to quash the orders of the Tribunal-respondent No. 3, passed on 03.02.2011.

The petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 4 are real brothers. The respondent No. 4 has let out premises bearing Apartment No. 305 at Ratna Sagar Building, 2332, Rasta Moti Singh Bhomiyon Ka, Johari Bazar, Jaipur, where the petitioner is carrying on his business. The respondent No. 4 has also let out residential premises bearing Apartment No. B-II, 401, 4th Floor, Kamal Apartments, adjoining Ram Mandir, Power House Road, Bani Park, Jaipur, to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 filed a petition under Sections 6 and 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, seeking petitioner''s eviction from the premises. The petitions are registered as Petition No. 2/2008 and Petition No. 7/2008, and are pending in the Rent Control Tribunal-2, which is the Court of Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur. The petitioner is contesting the eviction petitions filed by his brother/respondent No. 4 and has filed the written statement/reply on 22.05.2007. He has filed objections to the delay in filing the rejoinder-reply by the respondent No. 4 to the reply/written statement, filed by him, which are still pending disposal.

The petitioners have, after six years after the filing of the eviction petition by the respondent No. 4 under the Act of 2001, filed these two writ petitions challenging the constitution of the Tribunals, principally on the ground that the Notifications constituting the Tribunals u/s 19 of the Act of 2001, is unconstitutional and further on the ground that the Notifications establishing the Tribunals, have not been issued in the name or authority of the Governor and are thus, violative of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, coupled with ''Rules Of Business For Rajasthan'', made by the Governor of the State of Rajasthan on 14.12.1967.

The petitioner No. 2, appearing in person, has raised common arguments in both the writ petitions. He was heard by us at length.

We do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter; on the ground that the petitioner, having filed the written statement in the Rent Control Tribunal, where he is contesting the eviction petition, has filed the writ petitions after six years, challenging the constitution of the Tribunals and the Notifications, by which the Rent Control Tribunals were established, without explaining the delay.

The validity of the Act of 2001 including constitution of the Tribunals, was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Kamal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 07.12.2007. The relevant portion of the judgment, by which the Act was held to be constitutionally valid and challenge to the constitution of the Tribunals under the Act was repelled, are quoted as below:-

"2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length including the learned Additional Advocate General and categorically scrutinized the case law cited. For the sake of convenience, first we take the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the validity of the entire New Act with regard to legislative competency and being ultravires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The controversy whether the relation of landlord and tenant pertaining to the house and building is to be included under the Entry XVIII of State List in Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India or not by virtue of conflicting opinions of various High Courts, has been set at rest by later decision of the Supreme Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and another Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, whereby the legislation relating to the relationship of landlord and tenant including the rent control will now fall under Entry VI of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and the State legislature is competent to enact the law on this subject under Clause (2) of Article 246 of the Constitution of India and being a subject of concurrent list, it has also received the assent of the President of India on 25.2.2003. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Bill lacks legislative competence, is devoid of force.

In the light of the aforesaid decisions and considering the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Bill referred-to above, it transpires that the provisions of Chapters 1 to 4 dealing with the classification of tenants on economic criterion, restricting its protecting to particular premises, etc. is a policy decision based on social justice and can never be termed as unjust, unreasonable or unfair so as to infringe Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Chapter 6 and 7 deals with the amenities and the miscellaneous provisions respectively/except non obstante clause u/s 32(3)(a) of repeal and saving, which will be discussed later on. Lastly, Chapter 5 is about the constitution of Tribunals whereby the jurisdiction has been taken away from the Civil Courts to that of Rent Control Tribunals. Part XIV A of the Constitution dealing with the Administrative & other Tribunals, prescribes under Clause (1) of Article 323B that appropriate legislature may, by law, provide for adjudication or trial by tribunals of any dispute, complaints or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in Clause (2) with respect to which such legislature has power to make laws. Sub-clause (h) of Clause (2) of Article 323B has been inserted by the Constitution 75th Amendment Act of 1993, whereby the rent, its regulation, control and tenancy issues including the right, title & interest of landlord and tenants had been incorporated in it. Therefore, the validity of Chapter 5 of the New Act regarding constitution of the Rent Control Tribunals cannot be also termed as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Fixing the criterion of applicability under the New Act for a specified rent rate arid classifying tenants for residential & commercial purposes on time demand, cannot be termed as violative of fundamental right, as the right conferred on the tenant under the rent Law is a protective or legal right under a statute which can be termed as a mere civil right and not a fundamental right and it is within the domain of the legislature to make such a classification of tenant and periodical revision of rent, economic criterion for applicability of the Act, constitution of the Tribunals to achieve the object for which enactment is made, etc. Thus, in no way, the provisions of the New Act can be termed as beyond the legislative competence and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is the wisdom of the legislature to make a policy based on the consideration of protecting the vested rights of the landlords on their lands and ensuring safeguards to the tenants against exorbitant rent rate."

We are in agreement with the reasons given in the judgment of this Court in Kamal Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan,(supra), and do not find any good ground to reconsider the challenge all over again. The petitioner has not made out any fresh ground to consider the constitutionality of the Act, and the validity of the constitution and establishment of the Rent Control Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals under the Act.

So far as challenge to the Notifications, establishing the Tribunals on the ground that they have not been issued in the name of the Governor of the State, nor do they bear the authority of the Governor, it is sufficient to state that there is presumption to all the official acts including the acts done under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. All the notifications issued, are presumed to have been issued by following the Rules of Business, applicable to issuance of the notifications. The Notifications, as reproduced in the writ petitions, have been issued under the signatures of the Secretary of the concerned Departments of the Government of Rajasthan, which raises a presumption of its validity. The petitioner has not produced any material which may rebut the presumption to make any probe or enquiry in the matter. The Tribunals have been established and are functioning in the State of Rajasthan for last several years.

The petitioner is the tenant of his brother/respondent No. 4 and is contesting the proceedings for eviction in the applications filed by his brother. Having contested the proceedings for last six years, he has filed these writ petitions apparently with malafide intentions to stall the eviction proceedings.

The writ petitions are dismissed.

A copy of this order be placed in connected file.