Narendra Shivaram Kundapurkar and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—The petitioners/residents of Kundapur in respect of residential premises, are before this Court, praying to strike down the word ''City'' in Part B of the First Schedule (areas to which Chapters I to III and V to VIII apply) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (in short, ''the Rent Act'') or in the alternative direct the respondent 1-State of Karnataka to extend the provisions of Chapters V to VIII of the Rent Act to the areas situated within Kundapur Town Municipal Council.

The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition may be stated as under:

The petitioners claim that they are tenants residing within limits of Kundapur Town Municipality. The landlords have filed suits as against the petitioners for their ejectment from the premises on the ground that Chapter VI (Regulation of Eviction) of the Act is not applicable to the premises.

The petitioners have common grievance in not applying the Regulation of Eviction (Chapter VI) of the Rent Act to Kundapur Town. It is contended that the population of Kundapur Town as per 2001 census is 28591. According to the Act, Chapters I to III and Chapters V to VIII of the Rent Act are applicable to the areas specified in First Schedule; whereas Chapters IV and I shall apply to the areas specified in the Second Schedule. Thus the area situated within Kundapur Town is excluded from the application of provisions of Chapter VI of the Rent Act. It is contended that the tenants of the premises situated within the area of Town Municipal Council are denied the protection from eviction which was given under the repealed Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. Further, the owners are evicting the tenants at their whims and fancies without requiring to show the bona fide requirement of the landlord and hardship that would be caused to the tenant in the event of eviction. It is further submitted that non-application of the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act is totally irrational and has no basis in law for denying the protection and the tenants as a class in the urban area are similarly placed with that of the tenants in TMC area and there cannot be a discriminatory treatment amongst the tenants.

Learned Counsel for the respondents submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation, but it does not forbid reasonable classification. The classification, however must not be "arbitrary, artificial or evasive", but must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. The constitutionality of every Statute depends on whether there is a basis for the classification made in the Statute. The basis of classification may be different e.g., geographical, vocational, difference in time, difference in nature of persons, trade and callings or occupations, etc. A law may be applicable to one State and not to another. Further, a State may be divided into several geographical regions and a law may be applicable to one and not to others depending on particular circumstances. In Shri Kishan Singh and Others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others, , the validity of Marwar Land Revenue Act, 1949, was challenged on the ground that it applied only to Marwar portion of the State of Rajasthan and not to the whole of the State. The Apex Court held the law not to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

I see no discrimination to hold that the non-application of Chapter VI of the Act to the tenants residing in TMC area is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In short, there is no merit in the petition. In the result, the petition is rejected. No costs.

Granted three weeks time to file memo of appearance by the Government Advocate.