Holding

The amendment exempting religious and charitable tenancies and the provision to abate pending proceedings are constitutionally valid as the statutory benefit is not a vested right and the legislature has authority to withdraw it.

Summary

The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 gave tenants who built structures on landlords' land protection against eviction and a right to compensation. The Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (effective 1996) amended the Act to exempt tenancies of land owned by religious institutions and charities and to abate any pending tenant proceedings, saving only those fully decided before the amendment. Mylapore Club, a tenant, challenged the constitutional validity of this exemption and the abatement provision, arguing it violated the Act's purpose and interfered with judicial decisions. The Supreme Court held that the legislature has plenary power to exempt certain tenancies and to withdraw statutory benefits, as the benefit is not a vested right, and the abatement clause is within legislative competence and does not impermissibly interfere with courts. Consequently, the amendment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

The constitutional validity of exempting tenancies of religious institutions/charities from the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.
Whether Section 3 of the Amendment Act, which abates pending tenant proceedings, exceeds legislative competence and interferes with judicial decision‑making.
Whether tenants possess a vested right to the benefits of the 1921 Act that cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.

Legislation cited

General Clauses Act, 1897s. 6
Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921s. 1, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 7, s. 9

Subjects

constitutional validitylegislative exemptiontenants protectionreligious institutionsamendmentvested rightsabatement of proceedingsArticle 14Article 19General Clauses Actretrospective legislation

Judgment

A MYLAPORE CLUB
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

OCTOBER 28, 2005

B [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.J

Madras City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921-Section I-Amendment by
C Madras City Tenant's Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 exempting tenancies
of land owned by religious institutions/charit!es form operation of the I 92 I
Act-Section 3 of Amending Act abating pending proceeding instituted by
tenant in respect ofsuch lands and declaring that all rights privileges conferred
on them by Act of I 92 I would cease, except for suit/proceeding in which
decree/order had been satisfied in full before Amending Act came into force-
D Constitutional validity of-Held: Amending Act was constitutionally valid and
exemption of tenancies granted by it had rational nexus to objects of Act of
1921-Power to exempt was available to legislature based on/act situation-
Tenants did not have vested right to protection of Act of 192 I and in absence
of such a right, the Amending Act was applicable to them-There was no
legislative intervention with a judicial decision as concluded transactions based
E on adjudications had been saved-Jn pending proceedings affected by the
Amending Act, legislature could provide that they be discontinued-General
Clauses Act, 1897-Section 6.

legislature power-Right to claim benefit of statute-It is not a vested
F right-It can be withdrawn by legislature which made the statute.

Madras City Tenant's Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994, enacted
by legislature of respondent state, by its Section 2 amended Section I of
Madras City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921 thereby exempting form the
operation of the latter Act tenancies of land owned by religious institutions/
G charities. Its Section 3 declared that any proceeding instituted by a tenant
in respect of any land owned by such a religious institution or religious
charity, which was being exempted from the operation of the Act pending
before any Court or the other Authority, would stand abated and all rights
and privileges conferred by the extension of the Act of 1921 would cease

H 996
, . MYLAPORE CLUB v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

and would become unenforceable. However, a proviso was added to the
997
A
effect that nothing contained in Section 3 shall be deemed to render invalid,
any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed his been executed
or satisfied in full before the date of the coming into force of the Act.
Appellants challenged the constitutional validity of this amendment. High
Court rejected the challenge. Hence the present appeal.
B
Appellant contended that (i) object of the Act of 1921 to ensure
expectation of a tenant who has put up a superstructure that he would
not be evicted was not belied would be defeated by exempting leases of
lands belonging to religious institutions/charities (ii) provision for abating
all proceedings initiated at instance of the tenant under 1921 Act was C
interference with judicial decision making process and beyond power of
the legislature.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The legislature itself has exempted the tenancies created
by religious or charitable institutions. The grant of the exemption to such D
tenancies has to be held to be having rational nexus to the objects sought
to be achieved by the Act. (1006-D-El

1.2. It is a matter for legislature to balance the object of the parent
Act with the object of protectising the rights of religious institutions and
religious charities and on the basis of the material available to the E
legislature, the decision to exempt the buildings of such religious
institutions and religious charities has been taken. (1006-G]

2.1. The power to exempt buildings belonging to religious institutions
or religious charities is available to the legislature based on the fact
situation arising out of the extension of the Act. Earlier views on such F
tenancies and the extension of the legislation, cannot be held to be a ground
for holding the present withdrawal arbitrary or unconstitutional. Nor can
a tenant raise a contention that he had a vested right to the protection of
a statute the benefit of which had been extended to him in between and in
the absence of any such vested right, it is also not open to him to raise a G
contention that the Act should not be made inapplicable to tenancies
created by certain religious institutions or religious charities. (1006-B-C]

2.2. Once the power to exempt an institution or entity from the
operation of the Act is conceded to the legislature, it cannot be argued
that the benefit of one section in that enactment could not be withdrawn. H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A The right under section 3 itself was extended only by the extension of the
• •

Act. The right of the tenant in respect of the building put up by him will
be governed by the terms of the contract and by general law. (1007-E-F(

SM. Transport (P) Ltd. v. V. Sankaraswamigal, AIR (1963) SC 864,
held applicable.
B
S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., [1985] 1 SCC
296, relied on.

M. Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, 85 Law Weekly 760,
C approved.

3.1. Once the applicability of the Act itself is withdrawn, no relief
can be granted to a person who could have been or who was earlier a
beneficiary under that enactment, after such withdrawal. Here, the Section
provides that even if some steps have been taken pursuant to the claim
D by the tenant under Section 9 of the Parent Act, the proceeding cannot
be continued in view of the exemption enacted in favour of the institution.
[1008-B-CI •

3.2. In the context of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, unless it
is shown that any right has accrued to the claimant under Section 6 of
E the General Clauses act, such a provision making it clear that the Act could
not be applied anymore to pending proceedings is not any way invalid or
incompetent. Unless the proceedings have concluded and the rights of the
landlord has passed to the tenant, no right accrues to the tenant. He is
only in the process of acquiring a right, the process having been set in
F motion at his instance. When pending proceeding are affected by an
amendment, it is open to the Legislature to provide that the said process \
cannot continue. That alone has been done by Section 3 of the Amending
Act of 1996. [1008-E-FI

4. The legislature has taken care to save the concluded transactions
G by providing that nothing contained in the Section shall be deemed to
invalidate any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed has
been executed or satisfied in full before the said date. Reading Section 3
of the Amending Act 2 of 1996, it could not be said that it is a legislative
intervention with a judicial decision. The proviso has saved concluded
H transactions based on judicial adjudications. [1007-C-DI
MYLAPORECLUB" STATE OF TAMIL NADU 999
) '

5. The power to legislate is a plenary power vested in the legislature A
and unless those who challenge the legislation clearly establish that their
fundamental rights under the Constitution are affected or that the
legislature lacked legislative competence, they would not succeed in their
challenge to the enactment brought forward in the wisdom of the
legislature. Conferment of a right to claim the benefit of a statute, being B
not a vested right, the same could be withdrawn by the legislature which
made the enactment. It could not be said that the Amendment Act lacked
either legislative competence or that it is unconstitutional.
(1006-G, H; 1007-A-B)

6. It is open to legislature to bring in a law that has retrospective C
operation. That position is not disputed. When it affects the vested rights
or accrued rights, that question will have to be considered in that context.
But the right to take advantage of a statute has been held to be not an
accrued right. (1008-A]

M. Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council, 85 Law Weekly 760, D
approved.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4531 of2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.3.2003 of the Madras High
Court in W.P. No. 4814 of 1997. E
WITH

C.A. Nos. 6385, 6386, 7905, 8853, 9400/2003, 193, 1231, 1232, 5404,
4458 and 191 of 2004.
F
R. Sundaravaradan, V. Balachandranan, V. Sundararaj, Mrs. Anjani
Aiyagari, K.B. Sandeep. K.K. Mani, S. Ravi Shankar (NP), Ramlal Roy, R.N.
Keshwani, R. Nedumaran, K.V. Viswanathan, B. Ragunath, K.V.
Venkataraman, G. Sivabalamurugan, Y. Arunagiri, L.K. Pandey, K.V.
Vijayakumar (NP), and P. Narasimhan for the Appellant.
G
K. Ramamoorthy, S. Vallinayagam, Sewa Ram, R. Ayyam Perumal, B.
Sridhar, K. Ram Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, (NP), A.T.M. Sampath, Ms.
T.S. Shanthi, Balaji Srinivasan, V. Sudeer, S. Srinivasan, V. Prabhakar, V.
Ramasubramanian, Ms.G. Indira, K.R. Sasiprabhu, R Anand Padmanabhan,
Ms. Amritha Sarayoo, Pramod Dayal and V. Balachandran for the Respondents. H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
.f
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. 1. These appeals challenge the
decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court dated 4.3.2003 upholding
the validity of Sections 2 and 3 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection
(Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1996) published in the Official Gazette on
B 11.1.1996. By virtue of Section 2, Section 1 of the Madras City Tenants'
Protection Act, 1921 was amended and in the sub-Section providing for
exemptions from the operation of the Act, clause (f) was added and in that
process exempting tenancies of land owned by religious institutions or religious
charities belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religions. By Section
c 3, it was declared that any proceeding instituted by a tenant in respect of any
land owned by such a religious institution or religious charity, which was
being exempted from the operation of the Act pending before any Court or
other Authority, would stand abated and all rights and privileges conferred
by the extension of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 woLlld
cease and would become unenforceable. However, a proviso was added to
D the effect that nothing contained in Section 3 shall be deemed to render
invalid, any suit or proceeding in which a decree or order passed has been
executed or satisfied in full before the date of the coming into force of the
Act. It is not necessary to set out in detail the history of the legislation since
the same has been set out in SM Transports (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamigal
Mutt, AIR (1963) SC 864 and in M Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal
E
Council, [85 Law Weekly 760]. It is only necessary to notice a few salient
aspects. The present amendment, more or less, resembling the amendments
introduced by Amendment Act 13 of 1960 exempts lands belonging to a
religious institution or religious charity, from the operation of the Act and
also provides for abatement of pending proceedings and saving of completed
F transactions as against lands belonging to the Corporation of Madras,
Municipalities and certain other entities under Act 13 of 1960. \

2. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 was enacted with the
avowed object of giving protection against eviction to tenants who in Municipal
towns, townships and adjoining areas in the State of Tamil Nadu have
G constructed buildings on other's lands, so long as they pay a fair rent for the
land. It applied to all leases created before its commencement and initially it
applied only to the City of Madras. Section 1(2) gave power to the State
Government to extend the applicability of the Act as amended to other areas
in the year 1955. By virtue of Section 3, every tenant on ejectment was ~

entitled to be paid as compensation, the value of any building which may
H
MYLAPORE CLUB r. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] ] 00 J
,.
have been put up by him. Compensation was liable to be paid for the trees A
planted and other improvements effect by him. This was included by the
amendment in the year 1926. Section 9 enabled a tenant who was entitled to
compensation and against whom a suit in ejectment had been filed, to apply
to the court to direct the landlord to sell to him the optimum area out of the
leasehold wherein the building of the tenant stood. By the Amending Act of B
1955, the Act was made applicable to constructions put up before the
Amending Act. Hence the Act had no application to tenancies created or
constructions made after 12.9.1955. Notifications were issued extending the
operation of the Act to various towns. The Act was further amended in the
year 1960, by Act 13 of 1960. A proviso was added to Section 1(3) by
providing that the Act shall not apply to tenancies of land owned by the C
Corporation of Madras, by the Municipalities, by the local Panchayats and
certain other public bodies. Section 9 of that Amending Act provided for
abating of certain pending proceedings affecting the rights and privileges
which may have accrued to the tenant immediately before the commencement
of Act 13 of 1960.
D
3. The amendment introduced by Madras Act 13 of 1960 taking away
the protection of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Parent Act") as amended, was the subject of a challenge
in this Court in S.M Transports (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamigal Mutt (supra).
This Court repelled a challenge to the exclusion of non-residential tenants E
from the umbrella of protection afforded by the parent Act as amended. From
the suits instituted by the Salem Municipality, a landlord, in respect of lands
covered by the parent Act as amended, appeals reached the Madras High
Court and that Court in M. Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council
(supra) rejected all the contentions and upheld the validity of the Amending
Act of 1960 including the exemption and the abatement of proceedings under F
Section 9 of that Act and upheld the validity of the decrees passed in the
suits. The decision in M. Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council
(supra) was sought to be challenged in this Court by way of appeals. But
those appeals were dismissed without going into the question whether the
Amendment Act was valid or not on the ground that the State of Madras had G
not been impleaded therein. Thus, the decision in M. Varadaraja Pillai v.
Salem Municipal Council (supra) stood affirmed, but without consideration
of the merits of the judgment therein. When the present enactment exempting
tenancies created by religious institutions or religious charities came into
force, Writ Petitions were again filed in the Madras High Court challenging
the constitutional validity of the Amending Act practically on the same basis H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4S.C.R.

A as raised when Amending Act IJ of 1960 was brought into force. Those writ
petitions were dismissed on the basis that the judgment in M. Varadaraja
Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council (supra) had been affirmed by this Court
and in view of it, nothing remains to be decided since the very reasoning
adopted therein, would apply to the present amendments. Feeling dissatisfied,
B the Writ Petitioners took up the matter in appeal to this Court. This Court in
S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of TN. and Anr., (2002) 8 SCC 361 took the
view that since the appeals from M. Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal
Council (supra) were not disposed of on merits, but were dismissed on technical
grounds, the present batch of writ petitions which had been referred to a Full
Bench for decision had to be decided by the full bench on merits and it was
C not correct to say that the Court could not go into the correctness of the
decision in M. Varadaraja Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council (supra), the
question referred to the full bench, since that decision had been affirmed by
the Supreme Court. The case was remanded to the High Court for a decision
on merits by the full bench. Thereafter, the full bench considered the question
in detail. It held that the validity of the amendments could not be successfully
D challenged by the Writ Petitioners, the appellants before us, and that the
challenges have to be thrown out, based on the principles of law as settled •
by the decisions of this Court in various decisions including the decision in
SM Transports (P) Ltd v. Sankaraswamigal Mutt (supra). It is the correctness
of this decision of the Full Bench that is challenged in these appeals.
E
4. Before proceeding to discuss the merits of the contentions, we may
notice that on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4531 of 2003,
shown as the leading appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-Mylapore
Club submitted that the club, the tenant, had approached the landlord with a
proposal for renewal of the lease and in that situation, no particular argumert
F was being addressed on behalf of that appellant. Learned counsel in the other
\
appeals made elaborate submissions on the question of validity of the
Amending Act, Act 2 of 1966 and assailed the decision of the Full Bench
upholding its validity.

5. Initially, we may notice that in some of these cases, the landlords,
G exempt institutions under the present Amendment, had filed suits for recovery
and some of the tenants had sought to purchase the rights of the landlord by
invoking Section 9 of the Parent Act as earlier amended. The proceedings in
that behalf had not become concluded and had stopped midway and in some
cases had gone to the extent of fixing the area to be conveyed and the price
H to be paid by the tenants, when the Amending Act came into force. The
MYLAPORE CLUB v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 1003
--"
.,.
challenge before us, as it was before the High Court, essentially related to the A
validity of the very exemption being granted to such institutions and the
provision made for the abatement of pending proceedings even though the
tenant had put forward his right under Section 9 of the Act and steps have
been taken in furtherance of the exercise of that right. The deprival of the
right to compensation on eviction under Section 3 of the Parent Act was also
attacked. The challenge to Section 3 of the Amending Act relating to deletion B
of rights under Section 9 of the Act which conferred the right to the tenant
to offer to purchase the required land considering the building put up by the
~
tenant was somewhat muted in view of the fact that that aspect was clearly
covered by the ratio of the earlier decision of this Court in S. M Transports
(P} Ltd. v. Sankaraswamiga/ Mutt, (supra) and the fire was concentrated on c
depriving the tenant of the benefit under Section 3 of the Act which provided
for payment of compensation to the tenant for the building which he had put
up in case of his being evicted.

6. A few aspects may be referred to at this stage. Section 3 of the
Parent Act as amended, conferred a right on the tenant to claim as D
compensation, the value of the building which he might have erected in the
.. property leased. By virtue of Section 4 of the Act; it was provided that in a
suit for ejectment against a tenant in which the landlord succeeded, the Court
shall ascertain the amount of compensation payable under Section 3 and the
decree in the suit shall declare the amount so found due and d.irect that, on
E
payment by the landlord into Court, within three months from the date of the
decree, of the amount so found due, the tenant shall put the landlord in
possession of the land with the building and trees thereon. If the amount was
not paid within the time, the suit was to stand dismissed and a bar was
created in the landlord filing a fresh suit for a period of five years from the
date of such dismissal. Section 5 indicated the manner of determination of F
,. the compensation payable under Section 4. If a landlord was unwilling to pay
the compensation, then under Section 6, he had the right to seek the
1 determination of rent for the land held by the tenant on lease. Section 7
contemplated the filing of an application by the landlord for fixing the rent.
Section 9 provided that any tenant entitled to compensation under Section 3
and against whom a suit in ejectment had been instituted, could, within one G
month of the date of the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act,
1955 coming into force or of the date with effect from which the, Parent Act
was extended to the concerned town or village or within one month after the
service on him of su.mmons in a suit, apply to the Court for an order that the
landlord shall be directed to sell for a price to be fixed by the Court, the H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A whole or part of the extent of land specified in the application. If such an 1-
application was made, the Court had first to decide the minimum extent of
land which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant, and
then fix the price for that minimum extent to be retained by the tenant. The
price had to be the average market value for the three years immediately
preceding the date of the order. The Court was given the discretion, subject
B to an outer limit of three years, to grant time to the tenant to pay into the
Court the price so fixed. It was further provided that in default of payment
by the tenant, the application under Section 9 shall stand dismissed. The
earlier decision in SM Transports (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamigal Mutt (supra) •
related to the validity of the amendment which withdrew the applicability of
c the Act which had been extended earlier to various towns, in respect of lands
belonging to local authorities. This Court upheld the validity of the withdrawal.
This Court held that the withdrawal of the benefits conferred by the Act, the
benefit of which had been extended at an earlier point of time, could not be
held to be violative of the fundamental rights of the tenant who could have
claimed the protection of the enactment if the withdrawal amendment had not
D come into force. This Court referred to Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni
and Ors. v. The State of Madras and Ors., [1960] 3 SCR 887 and noticed that
it was held in that case that a law depriving a person of his property must be ,
a valid law and, therefore, it should not infringe Article 19 of the Constitution.
It was then postulated that a law depriving a person of his property wouid be
E bad unless it amounted to a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general .
public or for the protection of the interests of scheduled tribes. Proceeding on
that basis and after referring to the decision in Jayvantsinghji v. State of
Gujarat, AIR (1962) SC 821 and distinguishing the same, the Court held that
if the Act as amended by the Act of 1955 had held the field, the tenants could
have purchased the land. But by reason of the 1960 Amendment, tenants
F could no longer do so. Neither the 1955 Act conferred any right as to
superstructure under Section 9 of the Parent Act nor did the 1960 Act take .,
away that right. If this distinction between the land and the superstructure is
borne in mind, the untenability of the argument on behalf of the tenants
would become obvious. This Court held that the 1960 Amendment did not
G in any way affect the fundamental rights of the tenants. The challenge to the
deprival of the right earlier granted under Section 9 of the Act had hence to
be rejected. It was thus rejected.

7. In the order of reference to the Full Bench, the Division Bench of
the Madras High Court felt that even though the decision in M Varadaraja
H Pillai v. Salem Municipal Council (supra) regarding the validity of Section
•
i
I

MYLAPORE CLUB r. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] ) 005

9 of the Act may be unexceptionable in the light of the decision of this Court A
in S.M. Transports (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamigal Mutt, (supra), the Division
Bench might not be correct in thinking that the withdrawal of the protection
of Section 3 was also covered by the decision in S.M Transports (P) Ltd. 's
case. The Division Bench pointed out that this Court in S.M Transports (P)
Ltd. 's case had distinguished the case in Jayvantsinghji v. State of Gujarat B
(supra) and had specifically stated that the Court was not concerned with the
validity of the withdrawal of Section 3 of the Parent Act. The Division Bench
noticed the following sentence in S.M. Transports (P) Ltd. 's case:

"This Court's opinion on the question of the constitutional validity of
the Act in so far as it deprived the appellants of their right under C
Section 3 of the Principal Act is not called for: that will have to be
decided in an appropriate case.

"It is thus that the Full Bench of the Madras High Court was called upon to
decide the constitutional validity of the provision which resulted in withdrawal
of the benefit made available to tenants under Section 3 of the Act by the D-
earlier extension of the Act to such tenancies and to answer the argument that
the exemption granted to religious institutions and charitable trusts was
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the further challenge to Section
3 of the Amending Act of 1996 to the extent it provided for abatement of
proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Parent Act as amended, even
while saving concluded transactions. E
8. The Full Bench of the High Court has referred to the various decisions
of this Court wherein exemptions granted in respect of institutions from the
purview of an Act were upheld by repelling challenges based on Articles 14
and 19 of the Constitution. Moreover, it is seen that this aspect of the case
is also to a great extent covered by the decision of this Court in S.M Transports F
• (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamigal Mutt concerning the very Act. Whereas that w::.s
a case of an amendment, exempting lands belonging to the Corporation of
Madras, municipalities and other local authorities from the operation of the
Act, now it is a case of exempting lands of religious and charitable institutions
from within the purview of Act. We see no difference in principle while G
considering the validity of such an exemption provision whether it be relating
to the tenancies created by local authorities or tenancies created by religious
institutions or religious charities. The only available argument in that situation
that was urged was that there was discrimination in the matter of exempting
religious institutions. But the Court held that there was a reasonable
H
l
\
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A classification and there was no discrimination by preferring one religious
institution to another or one religion to another and in that context, there was .•
no merit in the challenge based on Article 14 of the Constitution. In the light
of the reasoning adopted by this Court in various decisions referred to in the
decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, we find that there is
B no reason to differ from the views so taken by the High Court. The power
to exempt buildings belonging to religious institutions or religious charities
is available to the legislature, based on the fact situation arising out of the
extension of the Act. Earlier views on such tenancies and the extension of the <
legislation, cannot be held to be a ground for holding the present withdrawal
arbitrary or unconstitutional. Nor can a tenant raise a contention that he had
C a vested right to the protection of a statute the benefit of which had been
extended to him in between and in the absence of any such vested right, it
is also not open to him to raise a contention that the Act should not be made
inapplicable to tenancies crated by certain religious institutions or religious
charities.

D 8. Jn S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., [1985]
SCC 296, this Court upheld the power given to the Government by the
concerned statute to exempt buildings belonging to public trusts from the •
purview of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Here,
the legislature itself has exempted the tenancies created by religious or
E charitable institutions. The grant of exemption to such tenancies has to be
held to be having rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the
Act. The ratio of the decision in S.M Transports (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamigal
Mutt covers that position also.

9. It was argued that the object of the Parent Act was to ensure that the
p expectation of a tenant, who has put up a superstructure, that he would not
be evicted is not belied, and that pulling down of the superstructure which
was the only option available to a lessee if the lease did not contain a contract
to the contrary, would result in congestion causing serious detriment to public
health. This object would not be subserved by exempting leases of lands
belonging to religious institutions or religious charities. It is a matter for the
G legislature to balance the object of the parent Act with the object of protecting
the rights of religious institutions and religions charities and on the basis of
the material available. to the legislature, the decision to exempt the buildings
of such religious institutions and religious charities has been taken. The power
to legislate is a plenary power vested in the legislature and unless those who
H challenge the legislation clearly establish that their fundamental rights under
MYLAPORECLUB r. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J] 1007
...
the Constitution are affected or that the legislature lacked legislative A
competence, they would not succeed in their challenge to the enactment
brought forward in the wisdom of the legislature. Conferment of a right to
claim the benefit of a statute, being not a vested right, the same could be
withdrawn by the legislature which made the enactment. It could not be said
that the Amendment Act lacked either legislative competence or that it is B
unconstitutional.

) I0. The argument that that the withdrawal of the benefit that might
have been available under Section 9 of the Parent Act was invalid and
unconstitutional could not be pursued successfully in the light of the decision
in S.M Transports (P) Ltd. 's case. The challenge based on that argument, C
was rightly repelled by the High Court.

11. The two main challenges before us, related to the question whether
the High Court was right in holding that the withdrawal of the benefit available
under Section 3 of the Act to the tenant was valid and constitutional. The
second was whether the provision in the Amending Act for abating all D
proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Act at the instance of the tenant,
did not amount to interference in the decision making process and hence
invalid in law. It was submitted that the provision in that behalf was beyond
the power of the legislature and was even otherwise arbitrary and unreasonable.

12. Once the power to exempt an institution or entity from the operation E
of the Act is conceded to the legislature, it cannot be argued that the benefit
of one section in that enactment could not be withdrawn. The right under
Section 3 itself was extended only by the extension of the Act. The reasoning
in S.M Transports (P) Ltd. v. Sankaraswamiga/ Mutt would cover the situation.
The full bench of the High Court in the judgment under appeal has rightly F
noticed that the right of the tenant in respect of the building put up by him
will be governed by the terms of the contract and by general law. The position
so adopted is unexceptionable.

13. It was contended that Section 3 of the Amending Act which provided
for certain pending proceedings to abate was a legislative act to put an end G
to a judicial proceeding and was clearly unconstitutional. Such an exercise of
power was not an enactment of a law but was an exercise of a judicial act
which a legislature was incompetent to exercise. Passages in Basanta Chandra
Ghose v. Emperor, AIR (1944) Federal Court 86 at pages 89 to 91 and from
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, [1975] Suppl. SCC I at page 40 were
relied on in support. H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 14. It is open to the legislature to bring in a law that has retrospective
operation. That position is not disputed. When it affects the vested rights or
accrued rights, that question will have to be considered in that context. But
the right to take advantage of a statutf: has been. held to be not an accrued
right. The matter has been discussed in detail in M. Varadaraja Pillai v.
B Salem Municipal Council (supra) by th<: Madras High Court after referring to
Abbot Vs. Minister of Land and the subsequent decisions. But Section 3,
which was in pari materia with Section 9 of the Amending Act of 1960, the
legislature had intended that pending proceedings should be affected. Even
otherwise, once the applicability of the Act itself is withdrawn, no relief can
be granted to a person who could have been or who was earlier a beneficiary
C under that enactment, after such withdrawal. Here, the Section provides that
even if some steps have been taken pursuant to the claim by the tenant under
Section 9 of the Parent Act, the proceeding cannot be continued in view of
the exemption enacted in favour of th1e institutions. But the legislature has
taken care to save the concluded transactions by providing that nothing
contained in the Section shall be deemed to invalidate any suit or proceeding
D in which a decree or order passed has been executed or satisfied in full before
the said date. Reading Section 3 of the Amending Act 2 of 1966, it could not
be said that it is a legislative intervention with a judicial decision. The proviso
has saved concluded transactions based on judicial adjudications. All that
Section 3 does is to make it explicit that the amendment is intended to apply
E to pending· proceedings. In the context of Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act, 'unless it is shown that any right has accrued to the claimant under
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, unless it is shown that right has accrued
to the claimant, such a provision making it clear that the Act could not be
applied anymore to pending proceedings is not in any way invalid or
incompetent. Unless the proceedings have concluded and the rights of the
F landlord has passed to the tenant, no right accrues to the tenant. He is only
in the process of acquiring a right, the. process having been set in motion at
his instance. When pending proceedings are affected by an amendment, it is
open to the Legislature to provide·that the said process cannot continue. That
alone has been done by Section 3 of the Amending Act of 1996. As far as
G concluded judicial proceedings are concerned and cases where orders for
possession have been executed or decrees sljtisfied in full before the date of
the amendment, they have been saved by the proviso thereby ensuring that
there was no interference by the legislature with judicial proceedings which
had reached a conclusion, even though that judicial proceeding related to a
religious or charitable institution exempted by the amendment from the purview
H of the Parent Act. We are, therefore, not in a position to find any merit in
MYLAPORE CLUB ''- STATE OF TAMIL NADU [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] J009
)
challenge to Section 3 of the Amending Act. A
15. Having considered anxiously the relevant aspects urged before us
and on considering the reasoning adopted by the full bench of the High Court
while turning down the challenge to the constitutional validity of Act 2 of
1966, we are satisfied that no grounds is made out for interference with the
decision of the High Court. We find that the reasoning adopted by the High B
Court is clearly sustainable in the light of the decisions of this Court referred
to by it and its conclusion is in accord with the law emerging from the
various decisions of this Court and the earlier decisions of the Madras High
Court. We, therefore, confirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss
these appeals. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. C
v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.