PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has struck down Section 23 of the Rent Control Act to the extent it discriminates between landlords of residential and commercial buildings, when it comes to their right to seek eviction of their tenants on grounds of the landlord’s bonafide requirement.
Hearing a petition filed by Alcon Construction (Goa) Pvt Ltd, the High Court ruled that the provision was violative of article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.
“Most of the provisions (of the Rent Control Act) make no distinction based upon the user of the building being residential or commercial. In the context of Control and letting, determination of fair rent, payment and deposit of rents, practically no distinction has been made based upon the user of the said building being residential or commercial.
However, when it comes to Section 23 of the Rent Control Act, which deals with the ground of the landlord's bonafide requirement, there is a distinction made that discriminates between landlords of residential and commercial buildings,” the High Court observed.
According to Section 23, the landlord, however bonafide and pressing his need, is precluded from seeking eviction of his tenant from a building used for non-residential or for commercial purposes… except if such a non-residential building used to keep a vehicle or adapted for such use if the landlord bonafide requires the same for his own occupation.
Neither the Rent Control Act nor the State's Affidavit provides a clue for this discrimination or differential treatment. Neither such a clue is found in the statement of objects and reasons nor in any circumstances of which judicial notice could be legitimately taken, the High Court also observed.
The State government in its affidavit suggested that such a distinction could have been made because “commercial tenancy is different from residential tenancy because a business undertaken at a particular place may have its own goodwill and other distinct advantages.”
However, the High Court found no justification for the discrimination.
“It is apparent that the classification based on the residential or non-residential user in the context of tenant eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement has no nexus with the object that the provision seeks to achieve or the provisions of the Rent Control Act seek to achieve. On this ground, the provisions of Section 23, to the extent they deny a landlord the right to secure eviction of their tenants from the commercial premises on the ground of bonafide requirement, will have to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,” the High Court said.
“In the absence of some perceptible nexus between the classification of landlords creating residential and commercial tenancies in the context of their tenants' eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement, the provision cannot be sustained, given the equality mandate. Simple classification is never enough, even if based on an intelligible differentia. The nexus is vital, and if the nexus is absent, the provision cannot pass the muster of Article 14,” the High Court said while proceeding to strike down the offending section and grant relief to the petitioners.
