MOHINDER KUMAR ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

MOHINDER KUMAR ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 as amended by Act 16 of 1978 is constitutionally valid. The exemption period of ten years for buildings constructed on or after the commencement of the Act is reasonable and serves as an incentive for new construction. The classification is rational and related to the object of alleviating tenant hardship. The provision operates prospectively and does not violate Article 14 nor take away vested tenant rights.

Parties
Petitioner: Mohinder Kumar etc, etc.; Respondent: State of Haryana and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 September 1985
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (article 32) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Writ petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Rent Control, Prospective and Retrospective Operation of Statutes, Reasonable Classification, Article 14 (equality Before Law)
Constitutional Law Property Law Rent Control Prospective and Retrospective Operation of Statutes Reasonable Classification Article 14 (equality Before Law)

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohinder Kumar etc, etc.

Petitioner

State of Haryana and Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (article 32) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 as amended is unconstitutional for making arbitrary classification and violating Article 14
  2. 2 Whether the amendment operates retrospectively and removes vested rights of tenants

Ratio Decidendi

Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 as amended by Act 16 of 1978 is constitutionally valid. The exemption period of ten years for buildings constructed on or after the commencement of the Act is reasonable and serves as an incentive for new construction. The classification is rational and related to the object of alleviating tenant hardship. The provision operates prospectively and does not violate Article 14 nor take away vested tenant rights.

Court Disposition

Writ petitions dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs