Venkataramiah, J. - (1.) The Constitutional validity of clause (b) of S. 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Act XV of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which exempts all buildings constructed on and after August 26, 1957 from the operation of the Act is challenged in these petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
(2.) On October 1, 1953, the State of Andhra came into existence under the provision of the Andhra State Act, 1953 comprising the area specified in Section 3 of that Act which formerly formed a part of the then State of Madras. By virtue of the provisions contained in Part VI of that Act, the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXV of 1949) continued to be in operation in the State of Andhra. On November 1, 1956 under the States Reorganization Act, 1956 with the merger of the area known as the Telangana area, which formerly formed a part of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, with the territories of the State of Andhra the new State of Andhra Pradesh came into existence. By virtue of Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, the Hyderabad House (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (Hyderabad Act XX of 1954) continued to be in force in the Telangana area even after the new State of Andhra Pradesh came into existence. In the Andhra area, the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 also continued to be in force. By a notification dated May 9, 1956 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the said Madras Act, all buildings in the Andhra area, the construction of which was completed on or after Oct. 1, 1953 were exempted from all the provisions of that Act for a period of three years from the date of such completion. On August 26, 1957 the State Government issued another notification under the Hyderabad Act exempting buildings in the Telangana area for a period of five years from the operation of that Act. Both the said Madras Act and the Hyderabad Act were repealed and replaced by the Act which came to he passed in 1960. It appears that at the time when the Bill which later became the Act was being considered by the Joint Select Committee of the State Legislature, the Chairman of the Committee informed the Committee that the Government of India had advised that new buildings should be exempted from the Act as it would be an incentive to the house building activity and he also brought to its notice that the State Government had issued the above said orders exempting the new buildings from the provisions of the respective Acts for a. limited period. Thereupon Joint Select Committee recommended that in order to afford an incentive to the house building activity, all buildings constructed after August 26, 1957 should be exempted from the scope of the Bill. Ultimately Sec. 32 of the Act was enacted as follows: "32. Act not to apply to certain buildings:- The provisions of this Act shall not apply: (a) to any building owned by the Government; (b) to any building constructed on and after the 26th August, 1957."
(3.) We are concerned with clause (b) of Section 32 in these cases. It may be noted that the exemption granted under clause (b) is not restricted to any specific period as it was in the notifications issued under the repealed Acts. Nor was it made applicable to new buildings as suggested by the Government of India by laying down a specific period during which they would be considered as new for purposes of exemption. The constitutionality of this provision was questioned before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution in Chintapalli Achaiah v. P. Gopalakrishna Reddy, AIR 1966 Andh Pra 51, in a petition filed in 1964. That petition was dismissed by the High Court on Jan. 5, 1965 upholding the validity of S. 32 (b) of the Act. In the course of its judgment the High Court observed thus: "The policy of the Act can be found out, as discussed above, from all permissible intrinsic and extrinsic sources. Thus examined, the policy underlying Sec. 32 is to provide an incentive to private efforts to construct new buildings. The Act read as a whole therefore balances the policy underlying the main Act and the policy underlying Sec, 32. This purpose cannot be said to be in any manner derogatory to the main purpose of the Act; in fact it supplements it. It is true that the tenants of the new buildings would suffer from the same hardship, in order to redress which the measure was enacted. The Legislature in, its wisdom and perhaps with justification thought that this hardship to the tenant will be short-lived and compared to the necessity of bringing into existence more and more new houses, for which purpose the concession is shown has necessarily to be tolerated for a short while in the interests the entire body of tenants as the new buildings are bound to bring down not only the hardships from which the new tenants would thus suffer but solve the larger problem of residential accommodation thus giving relief in all respects to the entire body of the tenants. It is for this purpose that it is now well settled that the Legislature can recognise degrees of evil without being arbitrary, unreasonable or in conflict with Art. 14 of the Constitution." (Underlining by us.);