Delhi High Court Issues Notice In Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity of Section 14(1)(h) Of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
story
The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice in a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 14(1)(h) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. A Bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh heard the matter and proceeded to issue notice in the same. The plea, represented by Advocates Abhinav Beri, Shivam Khera and Satyam Khera, submits that...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice in a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 14(1)(h) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
A Bench comprising of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh heard the matter and proceeded to issue notice in the same.
The plea, represented by Advocates Abhinav Beri, Shivam Khera and Satyam Khera, submits that Section 14(1)(h) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is "arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory towards the landlord having Non-Residential premises" as it violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
It goes on to list the ground such as a landlord having commercial property in Delhi and putting the same on rest for less than Rs. 3500 is clearly within the scope of Section 3(c) of DRCA as it uses the phrase "Residential or not". Therefore, it binds a landlord having commercial property to be governed according to the DRCA law. However, there exists no provision which stipulates the eviction of a tenant holding commercial property.
Further, the purpose of the DRCA law was to protect tenants "as they were weak during times of independence and there was scarcity of habitable residential accommodations in Delhi". Therefore, the plea alleges that the Legislature restrained eviction on any other grounds other than what is mentioned under Section 14. However, as there have been changes in societal circumstances, there is no guide pertaining to the social balancing of the interest of the landlord and the tenant.
"…Respondents have failed to adopt and bring in amendments in DRCA law in accordance with societal changes. The fact of no change in DRCA law and the latent flaw in the said law was clearly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India".
The plea also raises the issue that landlords having non-residential property under tenancy are being treated unequally and being discriminated against. Further, the issue of "intelligible differentia", the plea states, "is of no avail in present time due to increase in availability of infrastructure". Therefore, classification of residential or non-residential property fails on first condition of doctrine of reasonable classification.
Another ground contended in the plea states that the rational for classification under Section 14(1)(h) of DRCA does not have any nexus with the object of DRCA and thus, the second test of reasonable classification also fails, and is in violation of Article 14.
In light of the above, and as the Respondents continue to "have a laid back attitude towards such arbitrary and discriminatory implementation of DRCA law", the plea prays for the indulgence of the Court to urgently hear the matter and intervene in the same.
The plea, represented by Advocates Abhinav Beri, Shivam Khera and Satyam Khera, submits that Section 14(1)(h) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is "arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory towards the landlord having Non-Residential premises" as it violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
It goes on to list the ground such as a landlord having commercial property in Delhi and putting the same on rest for less than Rs. 3500 is clearly within the scope of Section 3(c) of DRCA as it uses the phrase "Residential or not". Therefore, it binds a landlord having commercial property to be governed according to the DRCA law. However, there exists no provision which stipulates the eviction of a tenant holding commercial property.
Further, the purpose of the DRCA law was to protect tenants "as they were weak during times of independence and there was scarcity of habitable residential accommodations in Delhi". Therefore, the plea alleges that the Legislature restrained eviction on any other grounds other than what is mentioned under Section 14. However, as there have been changes in societal circumstances, there is no guide pertaining to the social balancing of the interest of the landlord and the tenant.
"…Respondents have failed to adopt and bring in amendments in DRCA law in accordance with societal changes. The fact of no change in DRCA law and the latent flaw in the said law was clearly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India".
The plea also raises the issue that landlords having non-residential property under tenancy are being treated unequally and being discriminated against. Further, the issue of "intelligible differentia", the plea states, "is of no avail in present time due to increase in availability of infrastructure". Therefore, classification of residential or non-residential property fails on first condition of doctrine of reasonable classification.
Another ground contended in the plea states that the rational for classification under Section 14(1)(h) of DRCA does not have any nexus with the object of DRCA and thus, the second test of reasonable classification also fails, and is in violation of Article 14.
In light of the above, and as the Respondents continue to "have a laid back attitude towards such arbitrary and discriminatory implementation of DRCA law", the plea prays for the indulgence of the Court to urgently hear the matter and intervene in the same.
Click Here To Download Petition
[Read Petition]