# AND ANOTHER v. SRI SANKARASWAMIGAL MUTT

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 282
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-06-26
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, s. ]. IMAM, K. Subba Rao, K. N. Wanchco, J.C. Shah, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/and-another-v-sri-sankaraswamigal-mutt-2709
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Landlord and Tenant-Tenant building on leased /andRigltt of purchase-Whether property-Withdrawal of protection
of non-residential building to certain towns-Whether discriminatory or a restriction right of property-l!feaning of PropertyMadras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921(Ill of 1922), s.9, as
amended by Act XIX of 1955 and Act XIiI of 1960-0onstitution of India, Arts. 14, 19 and 31.
Each of the appellants in the two appeals who were tenants
of land in Tanjore on which non-residential premhes had
been constructed by them, applied to the Munsif under s. 9 of
the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921(III of 1922) to
have the respective sites conveyed to them after fixing the sale
price as contemplated by the Act.
Pending the decision of Lhe
applications by the Munsif, the protection and rights given to
the tenants who had constructed buildings on leased lands by the
Principal Act was withdrawn by Act XIII of 1960, in respect
of non-residential buildings in Tanjore but with regard to the
cities
of
Madras,
Salem,
Madurai,
Coimbatore and
Tiruchirappalli the protection and rights were retained both as
regards residential
buildings and
non-residential buildings.
The appellants applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution to
the High Court of Madras praying for a mandamus directing
the Munsif to determine their applications under s. 9 of the
Principal Act as extended to the town of Tanjore by Notification
and the Act of l 955 ignoring Act XIII of 1960 which was
impugned as offending Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.
The High Court upheld the· validity of the Act following the
earlier decision of that Court.
HeU, that confining the protection to reddenti;ll buildings
only in the tr>wn of Tanjore w~ile g~ving ~ro~ectl~n to tenants
of both residential and non-res1dentlal bmldmgs m the other
1
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
283
towns was based upon real differences between Tanjore and the
other tov.'ns regarding the pressure on non-reside11tial accommodation and other relevant factors including population and that
the differentiation was related to the object namely protecting
tenants of residential buildings principally and also of nonresidential buildings where the need was most felt.
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. 'l'endolkar
[1959] S.C.R. 279, Bhurlan Chaudhry v. State of Bihar, [1955]
I S.C.R. 1045 and The State of West Bengal. v. Anwar Ali,
[1952] S.C.R. 284, referred to.
Held, further, that Art. 19(l)(f) guarantees both abstract
as well as concrete rights of property and that property has the
same meaning in Art. 19(l)(f) and Art. 31(1).
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose [1954] S.C.R.
587, The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras
v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, [1954]
S.C.R. 1005 and Chiranjit Lal Choudhury v. Union of India,
[1950] 869, referred to.
Held, further, that 'law' under Art. 31 must be a valid
law and to be valid it must stand the test of other fundamental
rights including Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Kava/,appara
Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras,
[1960) 3 S.C.R., 887 referred to.
Held, further, that the right to purchase property conferred
by a Statute is in its nature the same as the right of'purchase
conferred by contract and in neither event could it amount to a
right of property.
Maharana ShriJayvantsinghji Ranma/,sin/ighji etc. v. The
State of Gujrat, [1662) Supp:-2 S. C. R. 411.
Held, also that the principal Act did not confer a right on
the t<·~1ant to the superstructure and therefore, the impugned
Act did not take away any such right.
Crvn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. 228 and 229 of 1962.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
June 26, 1961 of the Madras High Court in W p
Nos. 829 and 833 of 1960.
· ·
A. V. V~natka Sastri,
G.
Rama.swami,
J.B. Dadackan3i, 0. O. Mathur and Ravinder Narain
for the appellants.
'
1962
Swami Motor Tran.
port (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswa.
mfgal Mutt
1962
Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd.
v.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,627 of 53,845. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39627 for what follows._

1962
Sept~mber 26.
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
SWAMI MOTOR TRANSPORT (P) LTD.
AND ANOTHER
v.
SRI SANKARASWAMIGAL MUTT
AND ANOTHER
(And Connected Appeals)
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. ]. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO,
K. N. WANCHCO, J.C. SHAH and N. RAJAGOPALA
AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Landlord and Tenant-Tenant building on leased /andRigltt of purchase-Whether property-Withdrawal of protection
of non-residential building to certain towns-Whether discriminatory or a restriction right of property-l!feaning of PropertyMadras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921(Ill of 1922), s.9, as
amended by Act XIX of 1955 and Act XIiI of 1960-0onstitution of India, Arts. 14, 19 and 31.
Each of the appellants in the two appeals who were tenants
of land in Tanjore on which non-residential premhes had
been constructed by them, applied to the Munsif under s. 9 of
the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921(III of 1922) to
have the respective sites conveyed to them after fixing the sale
price as contemplated by the Act.
Pending the decision of Lhe
applications by the Munsif, the protection and rights given to
the tenants who had constructed buildings on leased lands by the
Principal Act was withdrawn by Act XIII of 1960, in respect
of non-residential buildings in Tanjore but with regard to the
cities
of
Madras,
Salem,
Madurai,
Coimbatore and
Tiruchirappalli the protection and rights were retained both as
regards residential
buildings and
non-residential buildings.
The appellants applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution to
the High Court of Madras praying for a mandamus directing
the Munsif to determine their applications under s. 9 of the
Principal Act as extended to the town of Tanjore by Notification
and the Act of l 955 ignoring Act XIII of 1960 which was
impugned as offending Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.
The High Court upheld the· validity of the Act following the
earlier decision of that Court.
HeU, that confining the protection to reddenti;ll buildings
only in the tr>wn of Tanjore w~ile g~ving ~ro~ectl~n to tenants
of both residential and non-res1dentlal bmldmgs m the other
1
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
283
towns was based upon real differences between Tanjore and the
other tov.'ns regarding the pressure on non-reside11tial accommodation and other relevant factors including population and that
the differentiation was related to the object namely protecting
tenants of residential buildings principally and also of nonresidential buildings where the need was most felt.
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. 'l'endolkar
[1959] S.C.R. 279, Bhurlan Chaudhry v. State of Bihar, [1955]
I S.C.R. 1045 and The State of West Bengal. v. Anwar Ali,
[1952] S.C.R. 284, referred to.
Held, further, that Art. 19(l)(f) guarantees both abstract
as well as concrete rights of property and that property has the
same meaning in Art. 19(l)(f) and Art. 31(1).
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose [1954] S.C.R.
587, The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras
v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, [1954]
S.C.R. 1005 and Chiranjit Lal Choudhury v. Union of India,
[1950] 869, referred to.
Held, further, that 'law' under Art. 31 must be a valid
law and to be valid it must stand the test of other fundamental
rights including Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
Kava/,appara
Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras,
[1960) 3 S.C.R., 887 referred to.
Held, further, that the right to purchase property conferred
by a Statute is in its nature the same as the right of'purchase
conferred by contract and in neither event could it amount to a
right of property.
Maharana ShriJayvantsinghji Ranma/,sin/ighji etc. v. The
State of Gujrat, [1662) Supp:-2 S. C. R. 411.
Held, also that the principal Act did not confer a right on
the t<·~1ant to the superstructure and therefore, the impugned
Act did not take away any such right.
Crvn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. 228 and 229 of 1962.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated
June 26, 1961 of the Madras High Court in W p
Nos. 829 and 833 of 1960.
· ·
A. V. V~natka Sastri,
G.
Rama.swami,
J.B. Dadackan3i, 0. O. Mathur and Ravinder Narain
for the appellants.
'
1962
Swami Motor Tran.
port (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswa.
mfgal Mutt
1962
Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt
Subha Rao, J.
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
S. Kothandamma Nayannr and M. S. K.
Aiyangnr, for the respondent No. 1.
A. Rnngnnndhnm Ghetty and A. V. Rangam,
for Intervener No. 1 (in both the appeals.)
R. 'l'hiagnrajan, for Intervener No. 2 (in C. A.
No. 228 of 1962).
1962. September 26. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
SuBBA RAo, ].-These two appeals on certificate raise the same points and arise out of a common
order made by the High Court of Judicature at
"Madras in Writ Petitions Nos. 829 and 830 of 1960.
Both of them may conveniently be disposed of
together.
The facts in Civil Appeal No. 228 of 1962 are
briefly as follows : The first appellant is a limited
company carrying on transport business.
The second
appellant is its managing director. The first appellant took over the business of Swami Motor Service
Company, of which the second appellant was the
Managing Partner. In his capacity as Managing
Partner of the said company, the second appellant
took a lease of a vacant site, being survey No. 2770,
belonging to the first respondent.
After the first
appellant took over the business of the said partnership company, including its leasehold interest in the
said site, the first respondent recognized him as his
tenant and was receiving the rent from him. It is
alleged that the appellants constructed many valuable
structures on the said site.
The first respondent i.e.,
Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt, through its trustee, filed
a suit, O. S. No. 103 of 1953, in the court of the
District Munsif, Tanjore, for evicting the appellantcompany from the site;.~d on July 30, 1954. a ~0!11promise decree for eVIct10n was made therem giVIng
six month's time for the appellant-company to v~c.ate
the site. The decree-holder filed an execution petition
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
285
in the said court against the first appellant for
executing the decree. Pending the execution petition,
Madras Act XIX of 1955 was passed empowering
the State Government to extend the Madras City
Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (III of 1922), hereinafter called the "Principal Act", to any municipal
town .by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Act XIX of
1955, the Government made an order notifying the
Town of Tanjore to have come within the purview
of the Principal Act. Under the provisions of the
Principal Act, the appellants filed Original Petition
No. 39 of 1956 in the said court for an order directing the execution of a conveyance of the said site in
favour of the company on payment of a price fixed
by the court. Those proceedings took a tortuous
course mainly, it is alleged, on account of obstructive
tactics adopted by the respondents in anticipation of
an expected legislation withdrawing the benefits conferred on tenants of non-residential buildings in the
Town of Tanjore.
As anticipated the State Legislature passed Act XIII of 1960, amending the Principal Act : the effect of the amendment was to
withdraw the protection given to tenants of non-residential buildings in the municipal town of Tanjore
and certain other towns. Under the provisions of
the impugned Act, proceedings instituted under the
provisions of the Principal Act relating to non-residential buildings situated in towns other than those
!!referred would abate. The appellants filed a petit10n .under A~t. 226 of the Constitution in the High
Court of Judicature at Madras for the issue of a writ
of mrindamu8 directing the District Munsif to dispose of the petition. in. accordance with the provisions
of s. 9 of the Prmc1pal Act, as it stood before its
amendment by Act XIII of 1960.
I~ Civi! App~al No. 229 of 1962 the subjectmat~er is a site ... bemg survey No. 74, Railway Road,
TanJore, belongmg to the first respondent to this
1962
Swami Motor Tram
port (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt
Suhba Rao, J.
1962
Swami Motor Tra1u~
port (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri
Sankaraswa~
migal Mutt
Subba Rao, J.
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
appeal. The appellant's father executed a lease deed
in favour of the first respondent in respect of some
parts of the said site; the lease deed contained a clause
giving an option to the tenant to renew the lease for
a further period of IO years. It is alleged that the
appellant's father had erected substantial structures
at heavy cost on the site even before the said lt;ase as
he was in possessions of the said site as a tenant
under the predecessor of the first respondent.
After
the expiry of 10 years, the appellant's father rxercised the option and continued to be in possession of
the property as tenant. The first respondent filed a
suit (0. S. No. 315 of 1950) in the Court of the District Munsif, Tanjore, for evicting the appellant
from the property, and obtained a compromise decree
dated January 10, 1952.
Under the compromise
decree the tenancy was extended to 12 years from
January 1, 1952 and after the expiry of that period
the first respondent was entitled to execute the decree
and take possession of the site after removing the
super-structures. Subsequently, as already noticed,
the provisions of the Principal Act were extended to
the Town of Tanjore. Thereupon the appellant's
father filed 0. P. No. 43 of 1956 in the Court of the
District Munsif, · Tanjore, for an order directing the
first respondent to convey the site in his favour on
payment of the price to be fixed by the court.
As
in the first case, in this case also the proceedings
dragged on till the Act of 1955 was passed. The
appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the
Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at
Madras for the issue of a writ of mantiamus directing
the District Munsif, Tanjore, to dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act prior to its amendment by Act XIII of
HltiO.
In both the petitions the appellants attacked
the comtitntional validity of Act XIII of 19GO.
The High· Court, by a common order, upheld the
f
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
287
constitutional validity of the said Act following the
decision of a division Bench of the same Court, in
Su:aminathan v. Sundara (1).
These two appeals, as
aforesaid, have been preferred on certificate issued
by the High Court.
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, learned counsel
for the appellants in both the appeals, raised before
us. the following points : ( 1) The 1960 Act infringes
the fundamental right of the appellants under Art. 14
of the Constitution for two
reasons,
namely,
(i) while the object of enacting the 1960 Act was
for safeguarding tenants from eviction from residential buildings, its provisions introduce a classification
between non-residential buildings in different municipal areas and gives relief to tenants of non-residential
buildings in some towns and refuses to give the same
relief to similar tenants of such buildings in other
towns in the State and such a classification has absolutely no relevance to the object sought to be achieved by the Act; and (ii) the 1960 Act makes a distinction detween non-residential buildings in Madras,
Salem, Madurai, Coimbatore and Tiruchirappalli on
the one hand and those in other towns, including
Tanjore, on the other and gives protection to the
tenants of such buildings in the former group and
denies the same to tenants of similar buildings in the
latter group, though the alleged differences between
the two sets of localities have no reasonable relation
to the object sought to be achieved, namely, the protection of tenants who have built substantial structures from eviction.
(2) The 1960 Act also offends
Arts. 19 (l)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution as it is
not a reasonable restriction in the interest of the
public on the proprietary rights acquired by the
appellants under the earlier Act XIX of 1955.
Mr. Nayanar, appearing for the first respondents in both the appeals, contends that ss. 3 and 9 of
the Principal Act could not be invoked by the appellants, as the lease deeds executed by them contain a
(1) I. L. R. 1961 Mad. 976.
1962
Swami Motor Tram·
por1 (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswa·
migal Mutt
Subba Rao, J.
1962
Sw.imi A1otor Trans·
port (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswa·
mi.~al Mutt
Subba Rao, J.
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
clear covenant that they would vacate their lands
within a prescribed period and as they had put up
their buildings subsequent to the execution of the
lease deeds.
He sustains the constitutional validity
of the 1960 Act on the ground that it neither offends
Art. 14 nor Art. 19 of the Constitution.
Mr. A. Ranganadham Chetty, appearing for the
State of Madras, to which notice was given, ela borates the second contention advanced by learned
counsel for the respondents by placing before us some
statistical data which, according to him, affords a
reasonable basis for the classification.
As regards
the contention based on Art. 19, he contends that the
rights conferred under Act XIX of 1955, namely,
right to compensation on eviction under s. 3 of the
said Act and the right to obtain a sale deed under
s. 9 thereof, are only analogous to a right to sue or a
right to purchase a property and they could not in
any sense of the term be equated with property
rights.
Before we consider the arguments, it would be
convenient to notice the scope of the relevant provisions of the Principal Act, Act XIX of 1955 and Act
XIII of 1960. The Principal Act, as amended by
Act XIX of 195.5, was enacted, as its preamble shows,
to give protection to certain classes of tenants who in
municipal towns and adjoining areas in the State of
Madras have constructed buildings on others' lands in
the hope that they would not be evicted so long ·as
they paid a fair rent for the land. The gist of the relevant provisions of the Principal Act, as amended by
Act XIX of 1955, may be stated thus: The Act
applies to any building, whether it is residential or
non-residential. Every tenant shall on ejectment be
entitled to be paid as compensation the value of
any building, which may have been erected by him
and also the value of trees which may have been
planted by him; in a suit for ejectment the court
shall ascertain the amount of compensation payable
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
289
by the landlord to the tenant and the decree shall
direct that the landlord shall be put. in possession of
the land only on payment of the said amount in
court within the prescribed time; if the landlord is
unable or unwilling to pay the compensation within
the prescribed time, he may apply for fixing a reasonable rent for the occupation of the land by the tenant;
a tenant, who is entitled to compensation and agaiust
whom a suit for ejectment has been instituted, mav
apply for an order that the landlord may be directed
tt'l sell the land to him for a price to be fixed by the
court, and thereupon the court shall fix the price in
the manner prescribed in s. !l and direct the said
amount to be paid to the landlord by the tenant
within a particular time and in default his application shall stand dismissed.
Nothing contained in the
Act shall affect any stipulations made by the tenant
in writing registered as to the erection of buildings,
in so far as they relate to buildings erected after ·the·
date of the contract : the provisions of the Act
apply to suits for ejectment which arc pending and
in which decrees for cjectment have been passed but
have not been executed before the coming into force
or the Act: vide SS.
2(1), 2(1-A), 3, 4, (i, !) and 12
of the Art.
It is, therefore, clear that under the
Principal Acttenants in the Madras City acquired
valuable rights which they did not have before the said
Act was passed. Prior to the Principal /\.ct a tenant of
a land over whirh he had put up buildings for residential or non-residential purposes w;1s liable to be
('Virtcd in accordance with law and his only right
was to remove the superstructure p11t up by him on
the land before rklivrring vacant possession.
But
after the Principal Act, a tenant simil;ir!y situated
has an option to claim either compensation for the
superstruclure put up by him or to apply to the
court to have the land sold to him for a rnnsidrratinn tn he r1xcd by it.
The Princi1;al Act "·as arnrndnl hy tlw l\fadras
Art XIX r.f l\lC,;i empowcri~1g t lw Sta lt' (;,,, ernrnni t
1962
Swami }.fotor Trani·
/Jort (P) 1.1£.:.
v.
Sri San'.·anuwt.lmigal A111rt
Su?ba Rao, .I.
1962
Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd.
v.
s,·i Sankaraswa·
migal Mutt
Suhba Rao, J.
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
to extend, by notification in the Official Gazette,
the protection given by the Principal Act to tenants
of any other municipal town in the State of Madras
and any specified village within five miles of the
City of Madras or such municipal towns who have
constructed buildings in others' lands with the hope
that they would not be evicted so long as they paid
fair rent. In exercise of the power so conferred, the
State Government issued on March 28, 1956, a
notification extending the Principal Act to. the
municipal town of Tanjore.. The result of 4he
notification was that tenants like the appellants who
were tenants of land over which they had put up
non-residential buildings acquired a right to ask for
compensation for the buildings so erected on ejectment or to apply to court for directing the decreeholder to sell the land to the tenants after fixing the
price in the manner prescribed in the Act. This Act
was also extended to various other towns like
Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirappalli.
The Legislature again changed its mind and
passed Act XIII of 1960.
By s. 3 of that Act the
following amendments were made in s. 2 of the
Principal Act:
"(i) for clause (1), the following clause shall be
substituted, namely:--
( 1) 'Building' means any building, hut or
other structure, whether of masonry,
bricks, wood, mud, metal or anv other
material whatsoever used-
·
(i) for residential or non-residential
purposes, in the City of Madras,
in the municipal towns of Coimbatore, Madurai, Salem and Tiruchirappalli and in any village
within five miles of the City of
Madras or of the municipal towns '
aforesaid and
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
291
(ii) for residential purposes only, in
any other area, and includes the
appurtenance thereto."
Secti<m 9. Every proceeding pending before any
Court, other than a proceeding relating to any
property situated in-
(i) the City of Madras,
(ii) the
municipal
towns
of Coimbatore,
Madurai, Salem and Tiruchirappalli, and
(iii) any village within five miles of the City of
Madras or of the municipal towns aforesaid,
on the date of the publication of this Act in the
Fort St. George Gazette, and instituted under
the provisions of the Principal Act, shall in so
far as such proceeding relates to non-residential
buildings, abate, and all rights and privileges
which may have accrued immediately before
such date to any person in respect of any
property situated in any area other than the
areas referred to above by virtue of the Principal
Act, shall, in so far as thev relate to non-residential buildings, cease ~nd determine and shall
not he enforceable:
Providrd that nothing contained in this section
shall
be
deemed
to
invalidate anv suit
or
proceeding in which the decree
or
o~der passed
has heen executed or satisfied in full before the date
mentioned in this section.
The result of this amending Act in resprct of
n<?n-residcntial buildings in places other than the
City o'. Madras and the other 5pecified municipal
towns is that all proceedings pending in
court~ in
rrspe_ct of those buildings abated and the rights
acqmn;d hv ~en.ants under t~1e l ~liili !\ct in respect of
the said hu1ldmgs arr extmgu1shed.
The rights, so
far relevant to the present enquiry, which the tenants
1962
Swami J1otor Trans·
port (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt
Subba RtW, J.
19G2
Swami J\-!otor Tranfport (Pi Ltd.
v.
Sri SankaraJwamiglll A-futt
Suh ha Rao, J.
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l!l63] SUPP.
had acquired under the l\J55 Act wcrr: (i) they werr
entitled on ejectment to be paid as 'ompensation the
value of the buildings erected by them or by their
pred<:ce>sorsin-in-terest, (ii) the court before issuing a
decree for eviction should ascertain the amount due
to a tenant and the decree for eviction should be
made conditional on the payment of the decree
amount, (iii) in suits where decree for ejectment h~d
been passed before the 1955 Act came into force, a
tenant could file an application for ascertainment of
the · comp~nsation due in execution and for a fresh
decree to be passed in accordance with s. 4 of the
Principal Act, and (iv) he had also a right, at his
option, to apply within the prescribed time to the
court for an order directing the landlord to sell the
land to him for a price fixed by the court, whether a
decree for ejectment had or had not been passed.
The tenants of non-residential buildings in places
other than the City of Madras and the specified
municipal towns lost the said rights after the 1960
Act came into force.
The first question is whether the 1960 Act, in
so far as it withdrew the rights conferred upon the
tenants of non-residential buildings in Tanjore, offends
Art. 14 of the Constitution, or whether it can be
justified on the doctrine of classification. The law on
the subject is so well settled that it does not call for
an extensive restatement : it would be enough if the
relevant propositions in the judgment of this Court in
Shri Rnm Krishna Dalmi1~ v. Shri Justice S. R.
Tenrlolkm·(1) are noticed, and they are :
"(l\ there is always a pres~mption in favour of
the constitutionality of an enactment and the
burden is upon him who attacks it to show that
there has been a clear transgression of the
·constitutional principles ;
(2) it must be presumed that the legislature
nnderstands and correctly appreciates the need
(I) [1959) S. C.R. 279, 297-298.
1 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
293
of its own people, that its laws arc directed to
problems made manifest by experience and that
its discrimination are based on
adequate
grounds;
(3) in order to sustain the presumption of
constitutionality the court may take into consideration matters of common
knowledge,
matters of common report, the history of the
times and may assume every state of facts which
can be conceived existing at the time of legislation; and
( 4) while good faith and knowledge of the
existing conditions on the part of a legislature
are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the
face of the law or the surrounding circumstances
brought to the notice of the court on which the
classification may reasonably be regarded as
based, the presumption of constitutionality
cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and
m{known reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating
legislation."
All the said propositions are subject to the main
principle of classification, namely, that classifica~ion
must be founded on intelligible differentia and the
differentia must have a rational relation to the: object
sought to be achieved by the statute in question ; and
that the classification may be founded on different
bases, such as, geographical, or according to objects
or occupations or the like : see Budlw.n Choudhry
v. The St,ate of Bihar(') and The State of West Bengal
v. A10war Ali Sarkar.(')
Bearing the said well settled principles in mind,
let us now proceed to consider them in relation to the
facts of this case. The first contention is that the
object of the Act is to safeguard the tenants from
eviction from residential quarters, but it affords
(1) (1955] 1 S. C.R. 1045.
(2) (1952] S. C, R. 284.
1962
Swami Afotor 1 rans~
port (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt
Subba RIUI, J,
1962
Swami Motor TransP"' (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankarajw~~
migal Mutt
Subba Rao, J.
294 SUPRE:ME COURT REPORTS [1963)SUPP.
protection to tenants of non-residential buildings in the
City of Madras, in the municipal towns of Coimbatore, .Madurai, Salem aud Tiruchirappalli and in
any village within five miles of the aforesaid City
and municipal towns, and there is no rational relation
between the said classification and the object
of the Act.
The
object
of' the
Act, the
argument proceeds, is to protect the tenants of residential buildings, whereas the Act protects also the
tenants of non-residential buildings in the aforesaid
City and municipal towns. So stated the argument
appears to be plausible, but a closer scrutiny reveals
that the object of the Act is to protect not only
tenants of residential buildings but also of other
buildings, though it is mainly conceived to protect
the tenants of residential buildings. The following
is the statement of objects and reasons attached to
Act XIII of 1960 :
"The Madras City Tenants' Protection Act,
1921, was enacted with the main object of
safeguarding the tenants from eviction from
residential quarters. In consistence with this
object it is proposed to restrict the application
of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act,
1921 (Madras Act III of 1922) to residential
buildings only."
It will be noticed from the above that the main
object of the Act is to safeguard the tenants of residential buildings from eviction but it is not the sole
object of that legislation. The objects of the 1960
Act only refer to the objects of the Principal Act.
The objects and reasons of the Principal Act are
given in the Fort St. George Gazette dated .July 26,
1921, at p. 1491. The relevant part of the objects
reads thus :
"In many parts of the City of Madras dwelling
houses and other buildings have, from time to
time, been erected by tenants on land belonging
to others in full expectation that subject to
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
295
payment of fair ground rent, they would be
left undisturbed in possession, notwithstanding
the absence of any specific contract as to the
duration of the lease or the terms on which the
buildings were to be erected. Recently attempts
made or steps taken to evict a large number of
such tenants, have shown that such expectations
are likely to be defeated ......................... ..
The Bill provides for the payment of compensation to the tenant in case of ejectment for
the value of any buildings which may have been
erected by him or by his predecessors-in-interest.
It also provides for settlement of fair rent at the
instance of the landlord."
The object of the said Act was to protect the tenants
not only of dwelling houses in the City of Madras
but also of other buildings in that City. The provisions of the Principal Act also, it is not disputed,
apply both to residential and non-residential buildings.
So too the 1955 Act.
Therefore, when in the
"objects and reasons" attached to Act XIII of l!J60
the authors of that Act stated that it was enacted
with the main object of safeguarding the tenants from
eviction from residential quarters, they were only
emphasizing upon the main object but were not
excluding the operation of that Act to non-residential
buildings.
So it is not correct to state that the object
of the Act is only to protect the tenants of residential
buildings.
There are no merits in this contention.
The more serious contention is that there is no
rational basis for classifying the tenants of non-resident!a~ buildings in the City of Madras aml the
mumc1pal towns of Madurai, Coimbatore Salem
and Tiruchirappalli and those of similar buildings in
?ther towns like Tanjore. It is said that if protection
1s necessary for the tenants of non-residential build-
~ngs in the said City and towns, the same protection
JS equally necessary for tenants of similar buildings
1962
Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaralwamigal Mull
Subba Rao, /,
1962
;w'lmi Motoi Transport iP) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswamigal A-Itlfl
Suhba Rao, J.
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
in Tanjore and other towns.
To state it differently,
the argument is that there are no
intelligible
differences between the non-residential buildings
located in the City of Madras and the municipal
towns of Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirappalli and those situated in other towns.
The
learned Judges of the High Court in Swarninntlum v.
Sundara (1 ), which was followed in the present case,
adverting to this argument observed at p. 987 :
"It is apparent that having regard to the large
population in the first five areas and the large
scale commercial activities in these areas, the
Legislature thought fit
that non-residential
quarters occupied by tenants on lands belonging
to others should also be offered relief from
being evicted summarily and arbitrarily."
This passage was criticized by learned counsel for the
appellants and it was asked, what was the relevancy
between the population of the different towns in the
matter of eviction of tenants from non-residential
buildings ? The population of a town is not a relevant circumstance though its density may be : the
pressure on the buildings or on the sites suitable for
building purposes does not depend solely upon population without reference to the area available for
building purposes, so the argument proceeds.
Mr. A.
Ranganadham Chetty, appearing for the State of
Madras, attempted to place before us statistics to
establish that towus preferred under the Act are
highly populated industrial and commercial centres of
the State compared to other towns like Tanjore and,
therefore, there would necessarily be high pressure on
non-residential buildings in the said localities and
consequently a spate of evictions. Before looking
into the statistics 1t would be convenient to notice the
allegations made in the affidavits.
On behalf of the
State of Madras, J. Sivanandam, Secretary to Government, has filed an affidavit, wherein he says in paragraph 8:
(I) I. L. R. 1961 Mad. 976.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
297
"On facts the position is that these four towns
of Ma<lurai, Tiruchirappalli, Salem and Coimbatore ranked the first four next to the City of
Madras in population, income and commercial
activities and a very large number of tenants
had been enjoying the protection afforded by
the then existing provision of this Act, in respect
of residential and non-residential buildings as
well. It was therefore thought that it would
not be proper to deprive these tenants of the
protection in respect of non-residential build-
.
"
ings.
It may at once be noticed that the industrial potential
of the preferred towns is not specifically mentioned.
But it appears to us that the expression "commercial
activities" is used in a comprehensive sense so as to
take in industrial activities. This statement is sought
to be supported in the affidavit by the proceedings of
relevant authorities and the correspondence that passed
between the State and the Union Governments. The
following extract from the Select Committee's proceedings throws further light on the subject :
" ............ on the reports received from Collectors, the Act was extended to certain Municipalities. But it was found that such extension
caused inconvenience to public bodies and other
institutions which owned the lands inasmuch as
they were not able to get sufficient returns
from these to carry on their activities under
present conditions ........................... However
it was represented that in the case of Madras
City such a restriction would cause cGnsiderable
hardship to the large number of small business
establishments and the privilege and concession
enjoyed by them over such a long period should
not be interfered with. While the Government
felt the reasonableness of this demand that in
the City non-residential buildings should not be
excluded from the protection afforded by the
1962
Swami Jlotor Tran
port (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Saukaraswamigal 1\l11tt
Subba Rau, J.
1962
Swami Motor Transport (P) ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt
Subba Rao, J.
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
Act, they were of the view that in place where
the provisions were being extended they should
apply only to residential buildings."
" ............ having regard to the wishes of certain
Hon. members that not only in the City but in
other municipalities also there should be no
distinction between residential and non-residential buildings, he (the Chairman) proposed
to add the four municipalities. of Madurai,
Tiruchirappalli, Salem and Coimbatore, in
sub-clause (i) of the proposed clause (l)."
These passages disclose not only the legislative objects
but also the political pressures for certain amend·
ments. But we are not concerned with the political
aspects of the legislation but only with its· objects.
The special treatment given to the City of Madras
and the other specified town is based upon the fact
that there are a number of small business establishments in Madras and other specified towns implying
thereby that there are not so many such establishments
in other towns.
The correspondence between the
Government of India and the Government of Madras
throws light on this question.
It is stated therein :
"Most of the tenancies of noB-residential buildings which en joyed protection from eviction are
in the City of Madras and the Municipal towns
of Madurai, Coimbatore, 'Salem and Tiruchirappalli which have been classed as Special
Grade or Selection Grade 'municipalities on
the basis of income and population ............... .
"
"This concession is considered necessary because
in the City of Madras and in the said four
Municipal towns there are a large number of
such tenants to whom denial of the protection
will cause great hardship. They have been enjoying this protection for some time p~t and they
have invested large sums of money in the hope
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
299
that they will not be evicted so long as they
pay the rent due."'
This again emphasizes the fact that the preferred
towns are of special importance and that comparatively a large number of non-residential buildings
are situated in the said City and towns. G. 0.
No. 331, L. A., dated February 18, 1953, passed by
the Government of Madras also shows
the comparative importance of the said towns.
It is stated
therein :
"They (Government) consider,
however, that
in view of the size and importance of the three
municipalities (Tiruchirappalli, Coimbatore and
Vijayawada) referred to above and also of those
of the Salem Municipality, the four municipalities stand distinctly apart from the other
first grade municipalities, excluding of course
Madurai Municipality which stands in a class
by itself.
The Government accordingly direct
that with effect from 1-4-1953 the municipalities of Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirappalli
and Vijayawada be classified as selection grade
. .
l" .
''
mumc1pa itles ........................ .
In the reply affidavit many of the factual assertions
made in the counter-affidavit have been denied. It
is alleged that the number of tenants of non-residential buildings who enjoyed the benefit of the provisions of the Act in municipal , towns like Tanjore,
Vellore and Connoor is also large. It is denied that
the preferred towns other than the City of Madras
have been enjoying the protection for a long time, for
~he <l:mendiag Act itself was pa~sed only in 1955. It
is pomted out that the population of a town is irrelevant but density of population matters and that the
density ?f population in
Tanjore,
Coimbatore,
¥adura1 and Salem is the. same.
Out of the allegations and counter-allegations the following
facts
emerge: ( l) Madras is a city of large population and
1962
Sw11111i Motor Tran.
port (I') Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankarasmamigal Mutt
Subba Rao, J.
1962
Swami Jlolar Transport (P) Ltd.
v.
Sri Sankaraswam;gal Mutt
Subba Rao, J.
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
commercial importance; (2) Madurai is classified
as a special grade municipality and the municipalities of Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirappalli as
selection grade municipalities on account of their size
and importance: they have comparatively larger
population and commercial potentialities; (3) in the
said towns there are a large number of non-residential
buildings; and ( 4) except for some vague avermcnts
made in the reply affidavit, there is nothing on record
to establish that the number of non-residential buildings in Taujore compares favourably with that in the
preferred towns.
These facts are, to some extent,
supported by the statistical data furnished before us
from
authorized
Government
publications. In
"Madras District Gazetteers, Madurai" it is stated
at p. 172:
"Madurai is one of the very few districts in this
State in which a comparatively large portion of
the population, about 37 per cent., lives by
industries, trade and other avocations.
This is
no wonder, seeing that it has never had, in spite
of irrigation works, any facilities like Tanjore
for absorbing the great bulk of its population
in agriculture. In fact it stands next to the
Coimbatore district in possessing a considerable
proportion of the non-agricultural population".
Though the statement refers to the districts as a whole,
it is well known that most of the industries are concentrated in the municipal towns of Madurai and
Coimbatore. In "India, 1962" the following figures
of population in some Towns of Madras State are
given:
Madurai
Coimbatore
Tiruchirappalli
Salem
Tuticorin
Vellore
4,24,975
2,85,263
2,49,933
2,49,084
1,24,273
1,13,580
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
301
1962
Tanjore
Nagercoil
1,10,968
1,06,497
Swami Afotor Tram,
Po•I (P) Ltd.
It is not necessary to pursue the matter further. It is
true that population alone cannot be a basis for the
classification made under the Act, but concentration
of large population is generally found only in towns
where there are commerce and industries. Though
it is possible that a smaller town with a lesser population may also have heavy industries and commercial
activities, that is an exception rather than the rule.
But in this case the Gazetteer supports the avcrment
made by the State in the affidavit that the municipal
towns selected for preferential treatment. are more
advanced commercially than other towns in the Sta tc.
Though the Government, at the earlier stages of this
litigation or even before the 1960 Act was passed,
did not bring out these differences ba>cd upon commerce and industry as prominently as its counsel now
seeks to do before us, we cannot brush aside the
argument as an afterthought. That apart, the Government of Madras was not a party in the High Court
and it had no opportunity to put forward its case
before that Court.
On the basis of the allegations
made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of
Madra.5, supported as it is by the statistical data furnished before us, we hold that there are real differences between non-residential buildings in the towns
of Madur~i, Coimbatore, Salem and Tiruchirappalli
and those m other towns of tht' Madras State wh'.ch
have reasonable nexus to the object sought to be
achieved by the Act.
·
The more difficult point is the impact
of
Arts. 19 ( 1) ( f) and 31 (I) of the Constitution on the
impugned provisions of the Act.
The relevant Articles of the Constitution read thus:
Article 19 ( 1) (f).
All citizens shall have the
right to acquire, hold and dispose of property.
v.
Sri
Sankaraswa·
miga! Ahllt
S11bha Rao, J.
1962
Swami Afntnr Trnnsf°'I (I') Ltd.
v.
Sri Saul;araswamigal Afutt
Subba Rao1 J.
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19G3]SUPP.
Article 31.