S. P. JINADATHAPPA versus R. P. SHARMA AND OTHERS

S. P. JINADATHAPPA versus R. P. SHARMA AND OTHERS

Section 3(3)(a) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951, is valid as it imposes a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public and provides ample guidance and safeguards in selecting a suitable tenant; the provision does not offend Articles 14 or 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Parties
Petitioner: S. P. Jinadathappa; Respondent: R. P. Sharma; Respondent: Controller (Respondent No. 2)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 April 1961
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Original Jurisdiction, Supreme Court
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights, Right to Property, Reasonableness of Restrictions, Equality Before Law, Statutory Interpretation
Constitutional Law Property Law Rent Control Fundamental Rights Right to Property Reasonableness of Restrictions Equality Before Law Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. P. Jinadathappa

Petitioner

R. P. Sharma

Respondent

Controller (Respondent No. 2)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Original Jurisdiction, Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 3(3)(a) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951 imposes an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental right to property under Article 19(1)(f).
  2. 2 Whether s. 3(3)(a) violates Article 14 of the Constitution by giving uncontrolled discretion to the Controller in selecting a tenant.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3(3)(a) of the Mysore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1951, is valid as it imposes a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public and provides ample guidance and safeguards in selecting a suitable tenant; the provision does not offend Articles 14 or 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed.
  • The petitioner shall pay the costs of the appearing respondent.