Allahabad High Court: While deciding a case relating to eviction of tenants who lived in the property of Petitioners which was regulated by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the division bench of Sunil Ambwani and Mohd. Tahir JJ. discussed on the issue of constitutional validity of the aforesaid Act which regulates the conditions of tenancy rent and restricts unreasonable eviction of tenants. The Court held that the absence of provisions of increase of rent periodically and above the agreed rent, the whole Act would not become ultra vires and also does not amount to deprive a person of his right to property which is a constitutional right.
The petitioners, in the present case, had referred to the case of this Court, Milap Chandra Jain v. State of U.P., 2001 (2) ARC 488, which declared section 3(k), 4(2), 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Act as ultra vires on the ground that freezing of rent of the buildings has become arbitrary and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 and 39-A of the Constitution of India and were held as unconstitutional. Whereas the respondents on the other hand said that declaration of some provisions of the Act as unconstitutional does not make the entire law as ultra vires and highlighted the importance of the said Act as welfare legislation. The Court declared aforesaid mentioned Allahabad High Court decision as bad in law and suggested State Legislature to take into account needs of the society with fair representation of class of persons and appoint a commission to make appropriate recommendations for making amendments to the Act. Neena Jain v. State of U.P., Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 50870 of 2004, decided on April 4th of 2014
For the text of the judgment, click here
