SARASWAT CO OP BANK LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on August 17,2006

SARASWAT CO-OP. BANK LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-154] [REFERRED TO]
U P EXPORT CORPORATION LTD VS. HARI MOHAN DAS TANDON [LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION VS. MIRIAM J BATLIWALA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-112] [REFERRED TO]
DACUNHA ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DILIP JHANGIANI [LAWS(BOM)-2010-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU HIGH COURT CAMPUS CHENNAI VS. S SESHACHALAM [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-390] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KISHORE VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD VS. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD [LAWS(SC)-2011-9-70] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Having regard to the existence of different rent control laws in the State of Maharashtra, The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as "the 1999 Act") was enacted to unify, consolidate and amend the law relating to the control of rents and repairs of certain premises and of eviction and for encouraging the construction of new houses by assuring a fair return on the investment by landlords and to provide for matters connected with the said purposes. The said Act came into force on 31st March, 2000, and repealed the existing Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946, including the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949; and the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. With a view to achieving the objects for which the Act was enacted, certain premises, as indicated in Section 3 thereof, were exempted from the provisions of the Act.
(2.)The exclusion of certain premises from the protection provided under the Act gave rise to litigation in which challenge was thrown by different litigants to the vires of the new Act as also Section 3 (1) (b) thereof as being arbitrary and discriminatory and without having any nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act.
(3.)Of the several writ petitions filed in the Bombay High Court, the Writ Petition of M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. was taken up for decision and it was held that the classification made in Section 3 with regard to different types of tenants was on the basis of an intelligible differentia having nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. It was held that the provisions of the new Act were intra vires and did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.