New Delhi, November 8
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Chandigarh Administration for attempting to take upon itself legislative powers by enforcing provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act in the Union Territory to make a distinction between two classes of tenants. It said executive powers could not be transgressed to achieve legislative results.
Besides, the UT Administrator, by issuing the notification, had missed the relevance of the distinction between the National Housing Policy (NHP) and the legislative policy, and the special status of Chandigarh by equating it with any other town of Punjab, the court said, while declaring the notification as unconstitutional.
“Change of legislative policy with the aid of the NHP was not within the domain of the Administrator. It was the sole prerogative of the legislature. The delegated legislation must be exercised… within the parameters of essential legislative policy,” a Bench of Mr Justice S.B. Sinha and Mr Justice P.P. Naolekar ruled.
Under the notification of November 7, 2002, the Administrator directed that the provisions of the East Punjab Rent Act, 1949, would not apply to the buildings with a monthly rent exceeding Rs 1,500 but such an order was not permissible under the law, the apex court said.
Neither any data was collected to fix the criterion for protection of a class of tenants by drawing a line of Rs 1,500 monthly rent nor the Administrator had assigned any reason for it
Moreover, the notification was not issued for a limited period and was obviously aimed at having a permanent effect and its effect would have been carried on until a new Rent Act was enacted, the court said.
It did not agree with the stand of the Chandigarh Administration that the notification was issued to achieve social objective not realised by the Rent Control
Act.
