Mohinder Singh vs Union of India and another

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—Briefly the case of the petitioner is that Mr. P.S. Multani was the owner of house No. 1515, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh, and the petitioner had taken it on lease from him. He started running a paying guest house in the premises, known as Capital Paying Guest House, Chandigarh. The site under the aforesaid house was resumed by the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2, on the ground that running of a paying guest house amounted to violation of the terms of sale of plot as the site had been transferred for residential purposes only. Respondent No. 2 thereafter issued a notice u/s 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the petitioner stating that he was in an authorised occupation of the site and he should show cause as to why he should not vacate the same. It is stated that the petitioner appeared before him and told him that he was a lawful tenant in the premises in dispute. Still respondent No. 2, it is further alleged, ordered his ejectment u/s 5 of the Act. The petitioner has challenged the order of ejectment.

The main ground on which the order of ejectment is challenged is that the States of Punjab and Haryana are running guest houses in the buildings constructed for residential purposes in the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the respondents have permitted them to do so. The counsel for the petitioner argues that if the States of Punjab and Haryana are at liberty to run guest houses in the residential buildings at Chandigarh, the respondents cannot place any restrictions on the private persons in running guest houses in such buildings. According to the Learned Counsel, in case the respondents put any restrictions on the private persons, that act is discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, but regret my inability to accept this contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Article 14 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. She word (sic) the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances. Every classification in some degree is likely to produce some inequality, but mere production of inequality is not enough. Differential treatment does not per se violete Article 14. It does so if there is no reasonable basis for differentiation. Article 14 does not forbid reasonable chassincation. It also does not require that the classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete. (See Kedar Nath Bajoria Vs. The State of West Bengal, . What is required is that classification must be founded on reasonable differentia and have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

It is mentioned in the return that the Governments of Pun jab and Haryana have been allowed to use residential buildings as official guest houses as these are meant only for officer and there is no profit motive involved in these cases. In the case of private guest houses, the main reason for running them is to earn livelihood out of the business. In case a building is used for the purpose of business, it becomes a business premises. In the case of Government guest houses, there is no motive of profit involved. It cannot be disputed that the State Government are expected to provide residential accommodation to their officers who come on official duty to Chandigarh. It is not possible for the Government officers visiting Chandigarh on official duty to stay in hotels and pay high charges for their board and lodging. Moreover, Government servants are governed by certain rules. While staying in a Government guest house, they are expected to maintain orderly behavior. If they deviate from it, they can be dealt with by the Government. In the case of private guest house ; any person, who has the capacity to pay, can stay there and use it in the manner he likes. If undesirable persons stay in private guest houses, it may create law and order problem for the Government. It is common knowledge that family men, especially those having young children, do not want to live in the neighbourhood of private guest houses. In the aforesaid situation I am of the view that there is reasonable classification between the guest houses which are run by the Government and those run by the private individuals in the residential buildings. I, therefore, reject this contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner then sought to urge that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 was a stereotyped order and that it was also not a speaking one. He urged that it was liable to be struck down on this ground. The counsel for the petitioner was unable to show to me that he took the aforesaid pleas in the writ petition. It is an established principle of law that if a plea has not been taken by a party, he cannot be allowed to take that plea at the time of arguments. In the aforesaid circumstances, I reject the contention of the Learned Counsel.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed with coots. Counsel fee Rs. 100/-.