# HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2019] 17 S.C.R. 828
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-12-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3674 of 2009
- **Bench:** N. V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna, Krishna Murari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/harbhajan-singh-etc-v-state-of-punjab-and-others-33679
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1997 - Vires of 1997 Act - Challenge to, by the
tenant on the ground that they are entitled to protection against
eviction under East Punjab Rent Act which cannot be taken away
under the Religious Premises Act - Held: Vires of the Religious
Premises Act, a special enactment concerning landlord and tenant
relationships, cannot be challenged on the ground that there are
already two other enactments governing general landlord and
tenant relationships-Transfer of Property Act and East Punjab Rent
Act - Constitution confers the power and authority on the State to
enact two separate enactments on a similar subject if they seek to
achieve different objectives and protect and preserve different sets
of rights and make necessary classification to serve such varied
ends - Religious Premises Act, unlike the East Punjab Rent Act and
the Public Premises Act, concerns itself with the administration of
premises belonging to religious institutions and seeks to regulate
their rights as landlords vis-a-vis the tenants in occupation -
Furthermore, the State legislature while enacting the Religious
Premises Act was aware that it has enacted East Punjab Rent Act,
an existing statute governing landlord and tenant relationship -
However, the State legislature in its wisdom deemed it appropriate
to enact a law in respect of land and buildings belonging to
"religious institutions" - East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions
Act, 1949.
Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1997 - Eviction proceedings against the tenants by
the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee under the East Punjab Rent
Act - Subsequently, enactment of Religious Premises Act and
ejectment proceedings against the tenant under the Religious
 [2019] 17 S.C.R. 828
828
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
Premises Act - Plea of tenant that Religious Premises Act creates
an artificial classification as tenants of land and buildings
belonging to or owned by religious institutions are no longer
entitled to protection under the East Punjab Rent Act though such
protection continues to be available to other tenants - Held:
Charitable or religious institutions or endownments fall into a
separate category and form a class by themselves - Tenants
coming under them also form a separate class and can be treated
differently from others - Classification of properties of religious
institutions as a separate and distinctive class of properties would
not fall foul or be violative of Art. 14 - Granting exemption to
buildings belonging to charities, religious or secular institutions,
from rent control legislation, would not offend the equal protection
clause of Art. 14 as it is a reasonable classification based on
intelligible differentia and also satisfies the test of nexus as such
institutions not only serve public purpose but disbursement of their
income is governed by the objects for which they are created -
Thus, the withdrawal of protection to the tenants of such buildings
was justified - Constitution of India - Art. 14 - East Punjab Urban
Rent Restrictions Act, 1949.
Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1997 - s. 3 - "Unauthorised occupation of
religious premises" - Meaning of - Held: A person is deemed to
be in unauthorised occupation of any religious premises if he has,
before or after commencement of the Religious Premises Act,
entered into possession of a land or building belonging to a
religious institution otherwise than under or pursuant to any
allotment, lease or grant - A person who enters into possession
of the land or building belonging to or owned by a religious
institution and has valid and subsisting allotment, lease or grant
is clearly not an unauthorised occupant - Valid grants, leases and
allotments are not construed and treated as unauthorised
occupation - It is only when the terms of the grant, lease or
allotment are not adhered to or have been determined or the period

## Text

_Characters 0–39,925 of 66,973. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39925 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3674 of 2009)
DECEMBER 04, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA, SANJIV KHANNA AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1997 - Vires of 1997 Act - Challenge to, by the
tenant on the ground that they are entitled to protection against
eviction under East Punjab Rent Act which cannot be taken away
under the Religious Premises Act - Held: Vires of the Religious
Premises Act, a special enactment concerning landlord and tenant
relationships, cannot be challenged on the ground that there are
already two other enactments governing general landlord and
tenant relationships-Transfer of Property Act and East Punjab Rent
Act - Constitution confers the power and authority on the State to
enact two separate enactments on a similar subject if they seek to
achieve different objectives and protect and preserve different sets
of rights and make necessary classification to serve such varied
ends - Religious Premises Act, unlike the East Punjab Rent Act and
the Public Premises Act, concerns itself with the administration of
premises belonging to religious institutions and seeks to regulate
their rights as landlords vis-a-vis the tenants in occupation -
Furthermore, the State legislature while enacting the Religious
Premises Act was aware that it has enacted East Punjab Rent Act,
an existing statute governing landlord and tenant relationship -
However, the State legislature in its wisdom deemed it appropriate
to enact a law in respect of land and buildings belonging to
"religious institutions" - East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions
Act, 1949.
Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1997 - Eviction proceedings against the tenants by
the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee under the East Punjab Rent
Act - Subsequently, enactment of Religious Premises Act and
ejectment proceedings against the tenant under the Religious
 [2019] 17 S.C.R. 828
828
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
Premises Act - Plea of tenant that Religious Premises Act creates
an artificial classification as tenants of land and buildings
belonging to or owned by religious institutions are no longer
entitled to protection under the East Punjab Rent Act though such
protection continues to be available to other tenants - Held:
Charitable or religious institutions or endownments fall into a
separate category and form a class by themselves - Tenants
coming under them also form a separate class and can be treated
differently from others - Classification of properties of religious
institutions as a separate and distinctive class of properties would
not fall foul or be violative of Art. 14 - Granting exemption to
buildings belonging to charities, religious or secular institutions,
from rent control legislation, would not offend the equal protection
clause of Art. 14 as it is a reasonable classification based on
intelligible differentia and also satisfies the test of nexus as such
institutions not only serve public purpose but disbursement of their
income is governed by the objects for which they are created -
Thus, the withdrawal of protection to the tenants of such buildings
was justified - Constitution of India - Art. 14 - East Punjab Urban
Rent Restrictions Act, 1949.
Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1997 - s. 3 - "Unauthorised occupation of
religious premises" - Meaning of - Held: A person is deemed to
be in unauthorised occupation of any religious premises if he has,
before or after commencement of the Religious Premises Act,
entered into possession of a land or building belonging to a
religious institution otherwise than under or pursuant to any
allotment, lease or grant - A person who enters into possession
of the land or building belonging to or owned by a religious
institution and has valid and subsisting allotment, lease or grant
is clearly not an unauthorised occupant - Valid grants, leases and
allotments are not construed and treated as unauthorised
occupation - It is only when the terms of the grant, lease or
allotment are not adhered to or have been determined or the period
of allotment, lease or grant as fixed has come to an end, that the
person in occupation is treated to be in unauthorised occupation
- This is a pre-condition which confers the right on the religious
institution to seek eviction of a person in unauthorised occupation
of the religious premises - Determinative factor in deciding the
HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
question of "unauthorised occupation" is the tenure of allotment,
lease or the grant and terms and conditions as agreed or stated,
and not payment of rent.
Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
Recovery) Act, 1997 - ss. 4, 5 - Eviction under - Held: Under
Section 4, a religious institution can make an application before
the Collector if it is of the opinion that any person is in
unauthorised occupation of any religious premises, situated within
the Collector's jurisdiction Punjab Religious Premises and Land
(Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 - Collector is authorised
and is competent to pass an order of eviction when he is satisfied
that the religious premises are in unauthorised occupation Punjab
Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act,
1997 - Order passed by the Collector is appealable before the
Commissioner Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and
Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 - Tenant, if still aggrieved, can invoke
the writ jurisdiction of the High Court - Thus, power of judicial
review is always available and can be exercised by the High Court
when required and necessary - Judicial review.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There cannot be any doubt that the State
legislature, that is, the Legislative Assembly of the State of
Punjab is entitled to enact the Punjab Religious Premises and
Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997, despite the fact
that they had enacted the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions
Act, 1949. It is accepted and judicial notice is taken by
acknowledging that the State legislature while enacting the
Religious Premises Act was aware that it has enacted East
Punjab Rent Act, an existing statute governing landlord and
tenant relationship. However, the State legislature in its wisdom
has deemed it appropriate to enact a law in respect of land and
buildings belonging to "religious institutions". The vires of the
Religious Premises Act, a special enactment concerning landlord
and tenant relationships, cannot be challenged on the ground that
there are already two other enactments governing general
landlord and tenant relationships (Transfer of Property Act and
East Punjab Rent Act). The Constitution confers the power and
authority on the State to enact two separate enactments on a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
similar subject if they seek to achieve different objectives and
protect and preserve different sets of rights and make necessary
classification to serve such varied ends. The Religious Premises
Act, unlike the East Punjab Rent Act and the Public Premises
Act, concerns itself with the administration of premises
belonging to religious institutions and seeks to regulate their
rights as landlords vis-a-vis the tenants in occupation. [Para 8]
[840-B-E]
1.2 Section 3 defines "unauthorised occupation of religious
premises by a person". The expression 'unauthorised
occupation' is of some importance. A person is deemed to be in
unauthorised occupation of any religious premises if he has,
before or after commencement of the Religious Premises Act,
entered into possession of a land or building belonging to a
religious institution otherwise than under or pursuant to any
allotment, lease or grant. A person who enters into possession
of the land or building belonging to or owned by a religious
institution and has valid and subsisting allotment, lease or grant
is clearly not an unauthorised occupant. Such allottees, lessees
or persons in whose favour there is a grant, allotment or lease
that entitles the person to retain possession are fully protected
and cannot be evicted. In other words, primacy to the terms of
allotment, lease or grant is not interfered, and is duly accorded.
The terms of the allotment, lease or grant would be binding.
Valid grants, leases and allotments are not construed and treated
as unauthorised occupation. It is only when the terms of the
grant, lease or allotment are not adhered to or have been
determined or the period of allotment, lease or grant as fixed
has come to an end, that the person in occupation is treated to
be in unauthorised occupation. This is a pre-condition which
confers the right on the religious institution to seek eviction of
a person in unauthorised occupation of the religious premises.
Clause (b) states that if the allotment, lease or grant has been
determined or cancelled whether before or after the
commencement of the Religious Premises Act, occupation of the
person would be treated as unauthorised occupation. Clause (c)
states that where a person is authorised to occupy any religious
premises, before or after commencement of the Religious
Premises Act, has sublet the religious premises in contravention
HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
of the terms of allotment, lease or grant, or otherwise acted in
contravention of the terms, express or implied, he shall be
treated as an "unauthorised occupant". Explanation to Section
3 states that for the purpose of clause (a), which makes the term
of allotment, lease or grant as a basis for determining whether
a person is in authorised or unauthorised occupation, shall not
be affected by the mere reason or the fact that such person has
paid rent and, therefore, is deemed to have entered into
possession as an allottee, lessee or guarantee. In other words,
payment of rent would not be a determinative and relevant factor
in deciding the issue and question of "unauthorised occupation".
The tenure of allotment, lease or the grant and terms and
conditions as agreed or stated, would be the crucial and
determinative criterion. [Para 9] [840-H; 841-A; 842-F-H; 843A-D]
1.3 Under Section 4 of the Religious Premises Act, a
religious institution can make an application before the Collector
if it is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorised occupation
of any religious premises, situated within the Collector's
jurisdiction. The Collector thereupon is required to issue notice
in writing calling upon the person to show-cause why the eviction
order should not be made. Sub-section (2) prescribes the
requirement of a notice and sub-section (3) to Section 4
prescribes the manner in which the notice is to be served. Under
Section 5, the Collector is authorised and is competent to pass
an order of eviction after considering the cause, if any, shown
by the person to whom notice under Section 4 has been issued
and after examining the evidence that may be produced by such
person. The person in occupation has to be given reasonable
opportunity of being heard. The statutory requirement is that
the Collector should be satisfied that the religious premises are
in unauthorised occupation before he can make the order of
eviction. The Collector must also record reasons. The Collector
is required to pass an order within a period of 45 days from the
date of receipt of the application under Section 4 and the order
passed has to be affixed on the outer door or on some other
conspicuous part of the religious premises. If a person fails to
comply with the order of eviction within 30 days from the date
of the order, the Collector, or any other officer duly authorised
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
833
by him, can evict the person and deliver possession of the
religious premises to the religious institution. He is entitled to
use force as may be necessary. The tenant, if aggrieved, can file
an appeal against the Collector's order before the
Commissioner. Thereafter, the tenant is entitled to also invoke
the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 227 and
226 of the Constitution of India if the grievance still persists.
The power of judicial review is always available and can be
exercised by the High Court when required and necessary.
[Paras 10, 20] [843-E-H; 844-A-B; 855-E]
1.4 The issue of whether the properties of the religious
institutions for the purpose of rent control legislations can be
treated as a separate category is no longer res integra as this
aspect was examined in several decisions where this Court has
held that separate classification of properties of religious
institutions for rent legislations will pass a challenge under
Article 14 of the Constitution. It has been held in Nallamilli Rami
Reddi's case that charitable or religious institutions or
endownments fall into a separate category and form a class by
themselves. Tenants coming under them also form a separate
class. Tenants can be treated differently from others.
Classification of properties of religious institutions as a separate
and distinctive class of properties would not fall foul or be
violative of Art. 14. [Para 11] [844-C-D; 845-D-E-H; 846-A]
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Nallamilli Rami
Reddi and Others (2001) 7 SCC 708 : [2001] 2 Suppl.
SCR 287 - relied on.
1.5 There have been number of central and state
legislations wherein religious institutions with or without other
charitable organisations have been treated as a separate and
distinct class and accorded legal treatment concomitant to such
distinctiveness within the scope of the same enactment or other
enactments, Sections 11 and 115BBC, the Income Tax Act,
1961; Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 and Karnataka Hindu Religious
Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997; Orissa Hindu
Religious Endowments Act, 1951; Himachal Pradesh Hindu
Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act,
1984 as amended in 2018; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and Goa,
Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 1968, among others. [Para 12] [847-C-E]
1.6 Whether a notification granting exemption to buildings
belonging to charities, religious or secular institutions would
violate the equal protection mandate of Article 14, the Article
14 requires that the classification must be based on rational
grounds, that is, grounds germane to carrying out the policy or
the purpose of the Act and by way of illustration it was stated
that if such exemptions were granted in favour of all the buildings
belonging to charities, religious or secular institutions, such
classification would be reasonable and proper being based on
intelligible differentia having nexus to the object sought to be
achieved. Rent Act would unquestionably be a piece of beneficial
legislation intended to remedy the two evils, that is, rack-renting
extraction of exorbitant rents and unreasonable eviction orders
generated by a large scale influx of population to big cities and
urban areas post the Second World War creating acute shortage
of accommodation in such areas. Rent enactments overtly
protect the rights of the tenants in occupation of buildings in such
areas from being charged unreasonable rents and from being
unreasonably evicted. Therefore, such enactments even protect
tenancy after determination or end of their contractual periods
by enlarging the definition of the term 'tenant'. At the same time,
the rent enactments often contain other significant provisions
which indicate that the legislature itself felt that there may be
areas and cases where these two evils were neither prevalent
nor apprehended, and as such landlords' freedom need not be
curtailed at all. It is in this context that several enactments give
wider latitude to the landlords of religious, charitable,
educational and other public institutions if the possession is
required for purposes of such institutions. In other words, the
legislature is entitled and can make rational classification of
buildings belonging to government and those belonging to
religious, charitable, educational and other public institutions
which are accorded different treatment on the well-founded
assumption that such landlords are not expected to and would
not indulge in rack-renting or unreasonable eviction. The
constitutional validity of granting exemption to buildings
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
835
belonging to charities, religious or secular institutions, from rent
control legislation, would not offend the equal protection clause
of Article 14 of the Constitution as it is a reasonable classification
based on intelligible differentia and also satisfies the test of
nexus as such institutions not only serve public purpose but
disbursement of their income is governed by the objects for
which they are created. The income and activities are not for
private benefit. Consequently, withdrawal of protection to the
tenants of such buildings was justified. [Para 13] [848-A-H; 849A-B]
S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Another (1985) 1 SCC 290 : [1985] 2 SCR 398 ; P.J.
Irani v. State of Madras [1962] SCR 169 - relied on.
1.7 The landlords have been given certain statutory rights
under the rent enactments to seek eviction and these provisions
provide relief. In the absence of such rent control legislations,
a landlord has the right in law to evict the tenant either on the
termination of tenancy by efflux of time or other grounds after
giving notice under the Transfer of Property Act. Such rights
have been curtailed by the rent control legislations to give
protection to tenants having regard to the genuine and dire
needs but these should not be construed to destroy the rights
which have been given to the landlords. [Para 16] [852-E-F]
Kewal Singh v. Smt. Lajwanti (1980) 1 SCC 290 :
[1980] 1 SCR 854 - relied on.
1.8 It is open to the legislature to pick out one class of
landlords out of several covered under a specific provision of a
rent enactment so long as they form a class by themselves and
the legislature was free to provide benefit of a special procedure
to them in the matter of eviction against the tenants as long as
the legislation had the object to achieve and a special procedure
has reasonable nexus to the object to be achieved. [Para 17]
[853-F-G]
Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava (1984) 2 SCC
75 : [1984] 2 SCR 614 - relied on.
1.9 What has been said about the Public Premises Act that
being a later enactment it would prevail over the provisions of
the Rent Control Act in respect of public premises, would be
HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
equally applicable to the legislations made by the State legislature
of the State of Punjab in respect of the two enactments under
consideration, that is, the East Punjab Rent Act and the
Religious Premises Act. No doubt, in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Case
it has been observed that the underlying reason for exclusion
of property belonging to the government from the ambit of the
Rent Control Act is that the government while dealing with the
citizens in respect of property belonging to it would not act as a
private landlord but would act in public interest, albeit this
reasoning would equally apply to "religious institutions" as
defined. The religious institutions are meant to carry out public
purpose and the legislature can proceed accordingly that the
religious institutions would act in public interest for which they
were established. [Paras 18, 19] [855-A-C]
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. And Another v. Punjab National
Bank and Others (1990) 4 SCC 406 : [1990] 3 SCR
649 - followed.
S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Another (1985) 1 SCC 290 : [1985] 2 SCR 398 ;
Christ the King Cathedral v. John Ancheril and Another
(2001) 6 SCC 170 : [2001] 3 SCR 1112 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 287
relied on
Para 11
[1985] 2 SCR 398
relied on
Para 13, 19
[1962] SCR 169
relied on
Para 13
[1980] 1 SCR 854
relied on
Para 16
[1984] 2 SCR 614
relied on
Para 17
[2001] 3 SCR 1112
relied on
Para 19
[1990] 3 SCR 649
followed
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3674
of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition Nos.
14124, 14025 and 14754 of 1998.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
837
S.N. Chopra, P. N. Puri, Jashan Chopra, Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri,
Abhishek Puri, Advs. for the Appellants.
S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati,
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Manan Bansal, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. The afore-captioned Civil Appeal impugns the judgment dated
6th July 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which
dismissed five writ petitions challenging the vires of the Punjab Religious
Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 ('Religious
Premises Act', for short).
2. The appellants before us are tenants in occupation of shops
located in Gurudwara Singh Sabha, a gurudwara at Kukar Majra, G.T.
Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab. The
appellants claim that they were inducted as tenants during the period
1965-69 by Gurudwara Singh Sabha. However, no formal lease or
agreements were executed and albeit, over a period of time, rents were
progressively increased. The appellants further claim that they are small
businessmen carrying on trade primarily connected with steel industry,
while one of the appellants runs a dhaba. By the letter dated 2nd
March 1978, the appellants were informed that the affairs of the
gurudwara had come under the control of Shiromani Gurdwara
Parbandhak Committee ('SGPC' for short) and they should, therefore,
pay the rent to SGPC. It is alleged that the appellants have been paying
rent to SGPC or the manager of the gurudwara but receipts have not
been regularly issued.
3. In the year 1997, SGPC had filed an eviction petition against
one of the appellants, Harbhajan Singh, under Section 13 of the East
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('East Punjab Rent Act', for
short) on two grounds, viz., (i) failure to pay rent, and (ii) SGPC needed
the property for construction of shops. Harbhajan Singh had, thereafter,
deposited arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. The eviction
proceedings, however, had remained pending and were not decided.
4. On 29th January 1998, the Religious Premises Act was
enforced, and thereby introduced a summary procedure for evicting
HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
unauthorised occupants from the premises/property belonging to the
religious institutions. Thereafter, SGPC had filed ejectment petitions
under the Religious Premises Act before the Collector for eviction of
the appellants stating that the appellants were in unauthorised
occupation. The appellants, on receipt of notices from the Collector
under Section 4 of the Religious Premises Act, had filed the writ petitions
challenging the vires of the enactment before the High Court, which
by the impugned judgment have been dismissed. The primary challenge
before the High Court was to the explanation to clause (a) to Section
3 of the Religious Premises Act on the ground that the provision creates
an unintelligible classification to the disadvantage of the tenants who
are otherwise entitled to equal protection as other tenants under the
East Punjab Rent Act.
5. The pleas raised by the appellants were rejected by the
Division Bench of the High Court after referring to the object and
purpose behind the impugned enactment, that is, to preserve the property
of religious institutions, by observing that public at large has an inherent
interest in the "religious institutions" which were prone to
maladministration and mismanagement. Referring to the definition of
"unauthorised occupants", it was observed that a person who is in
occupation of the premises belonging to a "religious institution" on a
valid allotment, lease or grant is not to be treated as an "unauthorised
occupant" for the period of allotment, lease or grant. The explanation
states that mere payment of rent by the tenant who is in unauthorised
occupation shall not raise any presumption that such person had entered
into possession as an allottee, lessee or under a grant. Referring to
the detailed and comprehensive procedure for eviction under Sections
4 and 5 of the Religious Premises Act, it was held that the Collector
has to be satisfied that the opposite party was in "unauthorised
occupation" and only thereupon an eviction order can be passed after
following the due procedure. A person aggrieved against the order
passed by the Collector can file an appeal before the Commissioner
under Section 8 of the Act. Referring to the factual matrix, the High
Court has observed that all contentions on merits should be raised before
the authorities under the Religious Premises Act, in accordance with
law.
6. The primary contention raised by the appellants before us is
that as tenants they are entitled to protection against eviction under the
East Punjab Rent Act, which protection it is submitted cannot be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
839
withdrawn and taken away under the Religious Premises Act. Further,
the definition of "unauthorised occupants", as a result of explanation
to clause (a) of Section 3, is highly unjust and unfair as a tenant who
has been paying rent over a long period is deemed to be in "unauthorised
occupation" because of the termination of the lease, licence or grant,
or the time stipulated in the lease, license or grant has come to an end.
This it is submitted is unjust and unfair. The Religious Premises Act
creates an artificial classification as tenants of land and buildings
belonging to or owned by "religious institutions" are no longer entitled
to protection under the East Punjab Rent Act though such protection
continues to be available to other tenants. Expansion or construction
of a new building by a religious institution as was pleaded by SGPC in
their eviction petition under the East Punjab Rent Act would not justify
eviction. There is no public purpose or objective in enacting the law,
that is, the Religious Premises Act, which has become a calculable
device and means to increase income of the religious institutions. This
Court in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Another v. Punjab National
Bank and Others1 had examined and rejected the challenge to the vires
of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971
('Public Premises Act', for short) after recording that the property
belonging to the government would fall under a separate class and that
the government, while dealing with the citizens in respect of the property
belonging to it, would not act for its own purpose as a private landlord
but would act in public interest. This is a crucial distinction between
the government and private landlords and, therefore, for the same
reasoning in inverse, the present appeal should be allowed as the
Religious Premises Act creates an artificial distinction and discriminates
against the tenants of "religious institutions", though "religious
institutions" as landlords are not a separate class. Thus, the Religious
Premises Act should be declared unconstitutional and illegal as it violates
Article 14 of the Constitution.
7. The respondents, namely, the State of Punjab and also SGPC,
have contested the said submissions and contentions. Their submissions
and contentions would be noticed in the subsequent portion and in our
reasoning below.
8. The East Punjab Rent Act was enacted in the year 1949, soon
after the Partition, with a view to protect tenants and to curtail the right
1 (1990) 4 SCC 406
HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
[SANJIV KHANNA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
of the landlords to seek eviction notwithstanding the contract under the
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ("Transfer of Property
Act", for short) which is a general enactment regulating landlord and
tenant relationships. There cannot be any doubt that the State legislature,
that is, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Punjab is entitled to
enact the Religious Premises Act, despite the fact that they had enacted
the East Punjab Rent Act. We must accept and take judicial notice by
acknowledging that the State legislature while enacting the Religious
Premises Act was aware that it has enacted East Punjab Rent Act, an
existing statute governing landlord and tenant relationship. However, the
State legislature in its wisdom has deemed it appropriate to enact a law
in respect of land and buildings belonging to "religious institutions". The
vires of the Religious Premises Act, a special enactment concerning
landlord and tenant relationships, cannot be challenged on the ground
that there are already two other enactments governing general landlord
and tenant relationships (Transfer of Property Act and East Punjab Rent
Act). The Constitution confers the power and authority on the State to
enact two separate enactments on a similar subject if they seek to
achieve different objectives and protect and preserve different sets of
rights and make necessary classification to serve such varied ends. The
Religious Premises Act, unlike the East Punjab Rent Act and the Public
Premises Act, concerns itself with the administration of premises
belonging to religious institutions and seeks to regulate their rights as
landlords vis-à-vis the tenants in occupation. In this regard, reference
can be made to the object and purpose behind enacting the Religious
Premises Act, which is as follows:
"Since long various religious institutions have been representing
to the Government for vacation of their premises under
unauthorised occupation. On careful thought being given by the
Government, the State Government is of the opinion that the
religious institutions are facing a lot of difficulties in this behalf.
It is, therefore, expedient for the State Government to help the
religious institutions in getting their premises which are under
unauthorised occupation vacated through summary proceedings.
Hence, the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and
Rent Recovery) Bill, 1996."
9. Section 2(d) of the Religious Premises Act defines "religious
institution". Section 2(e) defines 'religious premises' and Section 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
841
defines "unauthorised occupation of religious premises by a person".
These provisions read as under:
"(d) "Religious Institution' means any gurudwara, temple, church,
mosque, temple of Jains or Budhas - which is registered under
the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central
Act No. XXI of 1860) or is established under any statute and
includes any other place of worship by whatever name, it may
be called, which is registered as aforesaid or is established under
any statute;
(e) "religious premises", means any land whether used for
agricultural or non-agricultural purposes, or any building or part
of a building belonging to a Religious Institution and includes, -
(i) the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appertaining
to such building or part of a building; and
(ii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a building
for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof;"
xxx
3. Unauthorised occupation of religious premises. - For the
purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be in
unauthorised occupation of any religious premises-
(a) where he has, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, entered into possession
thereof otherwise than under and in pursuance of any
allotment, lease or grant; or
(b) where he, being an allottee, lessee or grantee has, by
reason of the determination or cancellation of his
allotment, lease or grant in accordance with the terms
in that behalf therein contained, ceased, whether before
or after the commencement of this Act, to be entitled
to occupy or hold such religious premises; or
(c) where any person authorised to occupy any religious
premises has, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, -
(i) sub-let, in contravention of the terms of allotment,
lease or grant, without the permission of the Religious
HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
[SANJIV KHANNA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
Institution, the whole or any part of such religious
premises; or
(ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms,
express or implied, under which he is authorised to
occupy such religious premises.
Explanation. - For the purpose of clause (a), a person shall not
merely by reason of the fact that he has paid any rent be deemed
to have entered into possession as allottee, lessee or grantee."
"Religious institution" means any gurudwara, temple, church,
mosque or temple of Jains or Buddhists which is registered under
the provisions of the Societies Registration Act or established
under any statute. It also includes any place of worship by
whatever name called which is registered as aforesaid or
established under any statute. The definition is clear and no
contention or issue is raised that the definition of the term
"religious institution" is vague or incomprehensible. Similarly, the
expression "religious premises" has been defined in clear terms
to mean land used for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes
or any building or part of the building belonging to a religious
institution. The definition clarifies that the expression "religious
premises" would include garden, ground and out-house or any
fittings in the building or part of the building for more beneficial
enjoyment. The expression "unauthorised occupation" is of some
importance in view of the challenge and the contentions raised.
A person is deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of any
religious premises if he has, before or after commencement of
the Religious Premises Act, entered into possession of a land or
building belonging to a religious institution otherwise than under
or pursuant to any allotment, lease or grant. A person who enters
into possession of the land or building belonging to or owned by
a religious institution and has valid and subsisting allotment, lease
or grant is clearly not an unauthorised occupant. Such allottees,
lessees or persons in whose favour there is a grant, allotment or
lease that entitles the person to retain possession are fully
protected and cannot be evicted. In other words, primacy to the
terms of allotment, lease or grant is not interfered, and is duly
accorded. The terms of the allotment, lease or grant would be
binding. Clause (b) states that if the allotment, lease or grant has
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
been determined or cancelled whether before or after the
commencement of the Religious Premises Act, occupation of the
person would be treated as unauthorised occupation. Clause (c)
states that where a person is authorised to occupy any religious
premises, before or after commencement of the Religious
Premises Act, has sublet the religious premises in contravention
of the terms of allotment, lease or grant, or otherwise acted in
contravention of the terms, express or implied, he shall be treated
as an "unauthorised occupant". No contention, issue or objection
has been raised viz. clause (c) to Section 3. Explanation to
Section 3 states that for the purpose of clause (a), which makes
the term of allotment, lease or grant as a basis for determining
whether a person is in authorised or unauthorised occupation,
shall not be affected by the mere reason or the fact that such
person has paid rent and, therefore, is deemed to have entered
into possession as an allottee, lessee or guarantee. In other words,
payment of rent would not be a determinative and relevant factor
in deciding the issue and question of "unauthorised occupation".
The tenure of allotment, lease or the grant and terms and
conditions as agreed or stated, and not mere payment of rent
would be the crucial and determinative criterion.
10. Under Section 4 of the Religious Premises Act, a religious
institution can make an application before the Collector if it is of the
opinion that any person is in unauthorised occupation of any religious
premises, situated within the Collector's jurisdiction. The Collector
thereupon is required to issue notice in writing calling upon the person
to show-cause why the eviction order should not be made. Sub-section
(2) prescribes the requirement of a notice and sub-section (3) to Section
4 prescribes the manner in which the notice is to be served. Under
Section 5, the Collector is authorised and is competent to pass an order
of eviction after considering the cause, if any, shown by the person to
whom notice under Section 4 has been issued and after examining the
evidence that may be produced by such person. The person in
occupation has to be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The
statutory requirement is that the Collector should be satisfied that the
religious premises are in unauthorised occupation before he can make
the order of eviction. The Collector must also record reasons. The
Collector is required to pass an order within a period of 45 days from
the date of receipt of the application under Section 4 and the order
HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
[SANJIV KHANNA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
passed has to be affixed on the outer door or on some other conspicuous
part of the religious premises. If a person fails to comply with the order
of eviction within 30 days from the date of the order, the Collector, or
any other officer duly authorised by him, can evict the person and deliver
possession of the religious premises to the religious institution. He is
entitled to use force as may be necessary. The tenant, if aggrieved,
can file an appeal against the Collector's order before the Commissioner.
Thereafter, the tenant is entitled to also invoke the writ jurisdiction of
the High Court under Articles 227 and 226 of the Constitution of India
if the grievance still persists.
11. The issue of whether the properties of the religious institutions
for the purpose of rent control legislations can be treated as a separate
category is no longer res integra as this aspect was examined in several
decisions where this Court has held that separate classification of
properties of religious institutions for rent legislations will pass a challenge
under Article 14 of the Constitution. In State of Andhra Pradesh and
Others v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi and Others2, this Court was faced
with a challenge to the validity of Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
which had cancelled the leases of tenants of properties belonging to or
given or endowed for the purpose of any charitable or any religious
institution or endowment falling under the enactment, notwithstanding
the prevailing tenancy laws in the State of Andhra Pradesh, in order to
augment the rents payable for such properties which stood frozen on
account of the tenancy laws and since sale of such lands was not
feasible. While examining the question of religious institutions as a
separate and distinguishable class, this Court had expounded on the
scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and the kind of classification
that would stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, as under:
"8. What Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits is "class
legislation" and not "classification for purpose of legislation".