Holding

Section 2(1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is a valid classification and does not violate Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution.

Summary

The petitioners, who were the legal heirs of statutory tenants of residential premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, challenged the amendment introduced by Act 18 of 1976 that inserted clause (iii) in Section 2(1), which restricts the heritability of such residential tenancies. They argued that the clause discriminated against them in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The respondents contended that the legislature could validly differentiate residential from commercial tenancies because they are distinct categories with different policy considerations. The Supreme Court examined the classification test under Article 14 and held that the distinction was based on an intelligible difference and bore a rational relation to the legislative objective of protecting commercial tenancies, which are economically more valuable. Consequently, the Court found that Section 2(1)(iii) was not discriminatory and did not infringe Articles 14 or 21. The writ petitions and the special leave petition were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 2(1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which limits the heritability of residential premises, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the same provision violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the legislative classification of residential versus commercial tenancies is a permissible classification under Article 14.

Legislation cited

Act 18 of 1976 (amendment to Delhi Rent Control Act)
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 21
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 2(1)(iii)

Subjects

Delhi Rent Control Actstatutory tenancyheritable rightsresidential premisescommercial premisesArticle 14Article 21equality clauseclassificationdiscriminationconstitutional lawrent control

Judgment

A SH. GAURI SHANKAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1994

B [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ, J. S. VERMA AND
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : Section 2(l)(iii)(As introduced by Act
18 of 1976).
c 'Residential premises'-'Statutory Tenants'-Legal Heirs of-Provision
restricting the right of heritability held valid and not violative of Articles 14
and 21 of Constitutio1t-Statutory tenancies regarding residential premises are
dis~nct and different from statutory tenancies regarding commercial premises.

D Constitution of India 1950: Articles 14 and 21.

Equality-Classification of tenancies-Residential tenancies and com-
mercial tenancies-Affording greater benefit to heir of statutory tenants of
commercial premises and not to the heirs of statutory tenants of residential
E premises held not discriminatory.
The petitioners in these petitions are the legal heirs of "statutory
tenants" of residential premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
They challenged the validity of section 2 sub- section (1) clause (iii) of the
Act, as introduced by Act 18 of 1976 with retrospective effect. It was con-
F tended on their behalf that (i) the provisions of the Act do not make any
distinction between a "contractual tenant" and a "statutory tenant" and both
are treated alike. Since the incidents of a contractual tenancy and a
statutory tenancy are the same regarding the heritability, the provisions of
section 2(1) (iii) of the Act which seek to limit or abridge the rights of the
G heirs in so far as the residential premises are concerned, are discriminatory
and violatiye of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) the rights of the
heirs of a statutory tenant of the residential premises are hedged in by
various limitations regarding the order of succession as stated in Explana-
tion I and are also otherwise abridged by Explanations II and III of the
impugned provision depending upon their financial dependency. Such fet-
1
H ters or limitations do not exist in the case of the heirs of statutory tenants
244
GAURI SHANKER v. U.0.1. 245

in respect of the non-residential (commercial) premises. The differential A
treatment so meted out to the heirs of a statutory tenant of a residential
premises is not based on any rational distinction; (iii) this Court in
Damadilal v. Parashram, (1976] 4 SCC 855 and Gian Devi Anand v.Jeevan
Kumar and Ors., (1985] 2 SCC 683, has held that there is no distinction
between a statutory tenant and a contractual and both are heritable. This is
B
so even under section 2(1) of the Act, before its amendment. Therefore, the
restriction or the limitation regarding the heritability of the 'residential
premises' brought in by the impugned provision has no rationale and is
discriminatory; and (iv) the distinction in the heritability of statutory
tenancy between residential premises and non-residential premises is not
based on any reasonable classification and that it has no rational relation C
to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.

On behalf of the respondents it was contended that (i) the legislature
has treated commercial tenancy differently from the residential tenancy
and they are not similarly placed. Since the tenancy in respect of residen-
tial premises is distinct and different from ten~ncy in respect of the D
commercial premises, the limitation or restriction of the rights of the heirs
in so far as the residential premises are concerned, is a valid and permis-
sible classification and is not open to attack on the ground that it violates
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and (ii) the reasoning and
conclusion of this Court in Gian Devi Anand's case shows that the tenancy E
of the residential premises and commercial premises are distinct and
different and there exists a valid reason for limiting or abridging the rights
of the heirs regarding residential premises.

Dismissing the petitions, this Court
F
HELD : 1. The provisions in section 2(1) (iii)' of the Delhi Rent
Control Aet, 1958 which seeks to restrict or limit the right of the heirs, in
so far as the statutory tenants of residential premises are concerned and
to the extent provided therein, are not in any way discriminatory and do
not offend the gilarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution. [257-G]
G
2. A bare perusal of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, will show that
the legislature has treated commercial tenancy differently from residential
tenancy. They belong to two different categories with distinct features and
characteristics of their own. A commercial tenancy is invaluable and has
got distinct features and characteristics of its own different from that of H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A a residential tenancy. None of peculiar or unique feature present in the
case of commercial tenancies exist in the case of residential tenancies. In
the above background, if the legislature thought it fit to afford a greater
and extended right or benefit to the heirs of the statutory tenants of
commercial premises and not to extend such rights to the heirs of the
statutory tenants of residential premises, it only stands to reason and
B reckons the stark realities of the prevailing situation. The protection
afforded by the Rent Act to a tenant after the termination of the tenancy
and to the heirs of the tenant is only a creation of the Act and it is open
to the legislature to make appropriate provisions in that behalf. It can
make suitable and appropriate provisions in the Act with regard to the
C nature and extent of the benefit and protection to be so enjoyed and the
manner in which the same is to be enjoyed. Therefore, no question of
discrimination arises. (255-B, 257-D-F, 258-A]

3. It cannot be said that the right to shelter is a guarantee under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and so the abridgment or limitation
D placed on the rights of the legal heirs in the case of a statutory tenancy of
residential premises makes an inroad into the rights of the tenant under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The statutory tenancies regarding
residential premises are distinct and different from statutory tenancies
regarding commercial premises and the limitation or the restrictions
E placed by section 2(1) (iii) of the Act on the rights of the heirs of the
statutory tenants of residential premises are reasonable, fair and just in
all the circumstances of the case; There is no yiolati.on of the guarantee
enshrined in Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (258-D-E]

Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors., [1985) 2 SCC 683, ex·
F plained and relied on.

Damadilal v. Parashram, (1976] 4 SCC 855 and Sakhawat Ali v. The
State of Orissa, (1955] 1 S.C.R. 1004, referred to

4. The gravemen of Article 14 is equality of treatment. It is implicit
G that equals should not be treated unlike and unlikes should not be treated
alike. Likes should be treated alike. In giving effect to the said salutary
principle, a mathematical precission is not envi~aged and there should ·be
no fanatical or 'doctrinaire' or wooden approach to the matter. A practical
or realistic approach should be adopted. It is open to the State to classify
H persons or things or objects, for legitimate purposes. [252-E, G·H]
GAURISHANKER v. U.0.1.[PARIPOORNAN,J.] 247

Western U.P. Electric Power & Supply Co. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors. A
A.l.R. (1970) SC 21; Ram Krishna Dalmia and Ors. v.Justice S.R. Tendolkar
and ors., A.l.R. (1958) SC 538; Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Ors. v. State of
Bihar A.l.R. (1958) SC 731 and Re Kerala Education Bill, A.I.R. (1958) SC
956, referred to.

CML ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 1089 of B
1987.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

R.K. Jain, N.N. Goswamy, A.B. Rohtagi, D.V. Sehgal, Kailash Vas- C
dev, Rajiv Mehta, Ms. Vijay Lakshmi Menon, R.K. Khanna, P.K. Jain,
Jayant Bhushan, Mrs. Sushma Suri, T.C. Sharma, J.D. Jain, A.K. Sanghi,
A.V. Palli, Ms. Purnima Bhat, Ms. Rekha Palli and Atul Sharma for the
appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
PARIPOORNAN, J. In this batch of cases a common question arises
for consideration. The petitioners in the different petitions are the legal
heirs of "statutory tenants" of residential premises under the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). They assail
section 2 sub-section (1) clause (iii) of the Act, as introduced by Act 18 of E
1976 with retrospective effect as ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution ·of India. The respondents are - Union of India, The-
Delhi Administration and the landlords of the respective premises.

2. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1089 of 1987 is the main case. We will F
state a few facts of this case in order to understand the scope of the
controversy raised in this batch of petitions. There are 6 petitioners in the
Writ Petition. The petitioners' father obtained the rental of the residential
premises bearing Municipal No. 1331, First Floor, Baidwara, Maliwara,
Delhi-6, on a monthly rental of Rs. 40 some time in the year 1940. The
father died on 17.11.69. Thereafter, the third respondent herein, the owner G
of the premises filed a suit for possession of the premises against the
petitioners and their mother, suit No. 116/1970. It was alleged that the
tenancy was terminated by notice dated 28.7.1969 which expired on
3.9.1969. He claimed that since the statutory tenancy was not heritable, he
was entitled to a decree for possession. The suit was decreed by the Trial H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Court on 11.2.1974. It held that the statutory tenancy was not heritable.
The appeal filed by the petitioners before Additional District Judge was
futile. The petitioners have filed Second Appeal No. 135 of 1975 in the
Delhi High Court and it is still pending. It is the plea of the petitioners
that they being the heirs of the statutory tenant are entitled to the protec-
B tion of the Act. According to the petitioners the provisions of the Act do
not make any distinction between a 'contractual tenant' and a 'statutory
tenant' and both are treated alike. The rule of heritability extends to
statutory tenancy also. The decisions of this Court in Damadilal v. Parash-
ram, [1976] 4 SCC 855, and Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and Ors.,
[1985] 2 sec 683, have held that the rule of heritability extends to statutory
C tenancy whether it is residential or commercial,and the same rule will apply
in other States where there is no explicit provision to the contrary. This
was held to be the position in law under section 2(1) of the Act, even before
its amendment of the said provisions by the introduction of sub-clause (iii).
The new sub-clause (iii) of section 2(1) is not inconsistent with the earlier
D position and all that sub-clause (iii) to section 2(1) has done is to restrict
the right in so far as residential premises are concerned. Since the incidents
of a contractual tenancy and a statutory tenancy are the same regarding
the heritability, the (new) provisions of Section 2(1)(iii) of the Act which
seek to limit or abridge the rights of the heirs in so far as the residential
premises are concerned, are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of
E the Constitution of India. It is contended that Section 2(1)(iii) of the Act,
in so flt! as it limits or restricts the rights of the heirs of residential premises
in the manner and to the extent provided in the said sections, is violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In Writ Petition No. 575 of 1988, the petitioner claims to be the heir
F
one Sri Chhunnu Lal a statutory tenant under the Act, the respect of the
premises 42.B, Connaught Place New Delhi under respondent Nos. 1 and
2 who have filed a suit for possession. The suit is pending. The petitioner
attacks section 2(1) (iii) of the Act as ultra vires and discriminatory.

G In S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16911 of 1991 the petitioner claims to be the
heir of one Sri AK. Roy, a statutory tenant in respect of Flat No. 3A, Sujan
- Singh Park, New Delhi along with garage No. 1- Kand servant quarter No.
25-C/lllrd Floor. Respondent No.1 landlord filed suit No. 603/84 for
possession with mesne profits. the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding
H that the tenancy was not validly terminated by a proper notice. The appeal,
GAURISHANKER v. U.0.1. [PARIPOORNAN,J.) 249

RCA No. 3/88, filed by landlord was allowed. A further appeal filed by the A
petitioner before High Court (RSA 42/90), was dismissed on 27.9.91.
Earlier, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court (Civil Writ
No. 1406/88) assailing section 2(1) (iii) of the Act as ultra vires which was
dismissed on 30.10.91. Thereafter the present special leave petition was
filed by the petitioner objecting to the order passed by the High Court B
aforesaid.

3. We heard Mr. Jain, Senior Council who appeared on behalf of the
petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1089/87, as also counsel for the
respondents therein. The counsel appearing in the other cases also practi-
cally adopted the arguments advanced in this Writ petition. Mr. Jain C
contended that the decisions of this Court in Damadilal v. Parashram,
(1976] 4 SCC 855 and Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors, (1985] 2
sec 683, have held that there is no distinction between a statutory tenant
and a contractual tenant and both are heritable. This is so even under
section 2(1) of the Act, before its amendment. It has been further held in D
. Gian Devi Anand's case that the statutory tenancy of a commercial
·premises (non-residential) is absolutely heritable. While so, the restriction
or the limitation regarding the her:itability of the 'residential premises'
brought in by section 2(1) (iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has no
rationale and is discriminatory. The statutory tenant of a residential
premises, as well as non-residential (commercial) premises are similarly E
placed and the distinction in the heritability of statutory tenancy between
residential premises and non-residential premises is not based on any
reasonable classification and that it has no rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the Act and so discriminatory. On the other hand,
counsel for the respondents-landlords contended that the legislature has F
treated commercial tenancy differently from the residential tenancy and
they are not similarly placed. It is competent to the legislature to lay down
the manner and extent of the protection and the rights and obligations of
the respective tenants and their heirs. Since the tenancy in respect of
residential premises is distinct and different from tenancy in respect of the
commercial premises, the limitation or restriction of the rights of the heirs G
in so far as the residential premises are concerned, is a valid and permis-
sible classification and is not open to attack on the ground that it violatives
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the respondents
contended that the reasoning and conclusion of the Constitution Bench of
this Court in Gain Devi Anand's Case themselves will go to show that the H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A tenancy of the residential premises and Commereial premises are distinct
and different and there exists a valid reason for limiting or abridging the
rights of the heirs regarding residential premises.

4. It will be useful to extract Section 2(1) of the Act.

B "2(1) 'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account or
behalf the rent of any premises is, or, but for a special contract,
would be, payable, and includes;

(i) a sub-tenant;

c (ii) any person continuing in possession after the termination of
his tenanc-j, and

(iii) in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession
after the termination of his tenancy, subject to the order of sue- ~
cession and conditions specified, respectively, in Explanation I and
D Explanation II to this clause, such of the aforesaid person's:

(a) spouse,

(b) Son or daughter, or, where there are both son and daughter,
both of them,
E
( c) parents,

(d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre- deceased son,

as had been ordinarily living in the premises with such person as
F a member or members of his family up to the date of his death,
but does not include, - ·

Explanation I : The Order of succession in the event of the death
G of the person continuing in possession after termination of his
tenancy shall be as follows :

(a) firstly,.his surviving spouse;

(b) secondly, his son or daughter, or both, if there is no surviving
H spouse, or if the surviving spouse did not ordinarily live with the
GAURISHANKER v. U.0.1.[PARIPOORNAN,J.] 251

deceased person as a member of his family up to the date of his A
death;

(c) thirdly, his parents, if there is no surviving spouse, son or
daughter of the deceased person, or if such surviving spouse, son
or daughter or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises
as a members of the family of the deceased person up to the date B
of his death; and

( d) fourthly, his daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-
deceased son, if there is no surviving spouse, son, daughter or
parents of the deceased person, or if such surviving spouse, son C
daughter or parent, or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the
premises as a member of the family of the deceased person up to
the date of his death.

Explanation II. - If the person, who acquires, by succession, the
right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, D
was not financially dependent on the deceased person on the date
of his death, such successor shall acquire such right for a limited
period of one year; and, on the expiry of that period, or on his
death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue
.in possession after the termination of the tenancy shall become E
extinguished.

Explanation m. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared
that, -

(a) where, by reason of Explanation II, the right of any successor F
to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy
becomes extinguished, such extinguishment shall not affect
the right of any other successor of the same category to
continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy;
but if there is no other successor .of the same category, the G
right to continue in possession after the termination of the
tenancy shall not, on such extinguishment, pass on to any
other successor, specified in any lower category or categories,
as the case may be;

(b) the right of every successor, referred to in Explanation I, to H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy,
shall be personal to him and shall not, on the death of such
successor, devolve on any of his heirs." (

The main attack of the petitioners' counsel is against Explanation Il
aforesaid. It is stated that the heirs of a statutory tenant of the residential
B premises obtain or get a heritable right without limitation, only if the heirs
were financially dependent on the deceased. It is also argued that the rights
of the heirs of a statutory tenant of the residential premises are hedged in
by various limitations regarding the order of succession as stated in Ex-
planation I and are also otherwise abridged by Explanations II and Ill
C depending upon their financial dependency. Such fetters or limitations do
not exist in the case of the heirs of statutory tenants in respect of the
non-residential(commercial) premises. The differential treatment so meted
to the heirs of a statutory tenant in respect of the residential premises is
not based on any rational distinction and so hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
D
5. The scope and content of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
familiarly known as the equality clause, have been laid down in innumerable
decisions of the Court. It is unnecessary to refer to all of them. Briefly stated
the gravemen of the Article is equality of treatment. Article 14 forbids dis-
E crimination. As stated by Shah, J. In Western U.P. Electric Power & Supply
Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR (1970) S 21 at page 24:

"Article 14 of the Constitution ensures equality among equals: its
aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory
treatment. It does not however operate against rational classifica-
F tion. A person setting up a grievance of denial or equal treatment
by Law must establish that between persons similarly cir-
cumstanced, some were treated to their prejudice and the differen-
tial treatment had no reasonabl~ relation to the object sought to
be achieved by the law ."

G It is implicit from the above, that equals should not be treated unlike and
unlikes should not be treated alike; Likes should be treated alike. It is
settled law that in giving effect to the said salutary principle, a mathemati-
cal precision is not envisaged and there should be no fanatical or
'doctrinaire' or wooden approach to the matter. A practical or realistic
H approach should be adopted. It is open to the state to classify persons or
GAURI SHANKER v. U.0.1. [PARIPOORNAN, J.] 253

things or objects, for legitimate purposes. A
6. The scope of Article 14 has been summerised in the oft quoted
decision, Ram Krishna Dalima & Ors. v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors., AIR
(1958) SC 538. At page 547, the Constitution Bench of this Court held thus:

"It is now well established that while Art. 14 forbids class legisla- B
tion, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes
of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible
classification two conditions must be fulfilled, namely,

(i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible dif- C
ferentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped
together from others left out of the group and

(ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification
may be founded on different basis, namely, geographical, or ac- D
cording to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is
that there must be nexus between the basis of classification and
the object of the Act under consideration. .......

The principle enunciated above has been consistently adopted and E
applied in subsequent cases. The decisions of this Court further
establish-

(a) that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a
single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or
reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single F
individual may be treated as a class by himself;

(b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the con-
stitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who
attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the G
constitutional principles;

(c) that it must be presumed that the Legislature understands and
correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its law are
directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its
discriminations are based on adequate grounds; H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A ( d) that the Legislature is free to recognise degrees of hann and may
confine its restrictions those cases where the need is deemed to
be the clearest;

(e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the
Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge,
B 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

(t) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions
on the part of a Legislature are to be presumed, if there· is nothing
c on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought
to the notice of the Court on which the classification may be
reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of con-
stitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that
there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subject-
ing certain individuals or corporation to hostile or dis£riminating
D legislation."

The above decision has been followed in innumerable subsequent cases.
See Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR (1958) SC 731, In
re Kera/a Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956, and other cases.
E 7. In Ram Krishna Dalmia's case, the different situations in which a
statute may come up for consideration on the question of validity under
Article 14 of the Constitution have been catalogued in Paragraph 12 of the
Judgment. They are broadly dealt with as falling in five groups of clauses.
For the purpose of this case, it is sufficient if we refer to paragraph 12
F clause (1).

"(1) A statute may itself indicate the persons or things to whom its
provisions are intended to apply and the basis of classification of
such persons or things may appear on the face of the statute or
may be gathered from the surrounding circumstances known to or
G brought to the notice of the court. In determining the validity or
otherwise of such a statute the Court has to examine whether such
classification is or can be reasonably regarded as based upon some
differentia with distinguishes such persons or things grouped
together from those left out of the group and whether such dif-
H ferentia has a reasonable relation to the object sought . to be
GAURISHANKER v. U.0.1.(PARIPOORNAN,J.) 255

achieved by the statute, no matter whether the provisions of the A
statute are intended to apply only to a particular person or thing
or only to a certain class of persons or things. Where the Court
finds that the classification satisfies the tests, the Court will uphold
the validity of the law."

8. Bearing the above principles in mind, let us look into the
B
provisions of the Act. A bare perusal of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,
will show that the legislature has treated commercial tenancy differently
from residential tenancy. Indeed, Gian Devi Anand's case, in paragraph 32
and 34 of the Judgment the Constitution Bench of this Court has pointedly
dealt with the matter thus: c
"32. It may be noted that for certain purpose the Legislature in the
Delhi Act in question and also in various other Rent acts has
treated commercial premises differently from residential premises.
Section 14{1){d) provides that it will be a good ground for eviction D
of a tenant from residential premises if the. premises left for use
as residence is not so used for a period of six months immediately
before the filing of the application for the recovery of possession
of the premises. Similarly Section 14(1)(e) makes bona fide re-
quirement of the landlord of the premises let out to the tenant for
residential purposes a good ground for eviction of the tenant from E
such premises. These grounds, however, are not made available in
respect of commercial promises."

"34. It may be noticed that the Legislature itself treats conimercial
tenancy differently from residential tenancy in the matter of evic- F
tion of the tenant in the Delhi Rent Act and also in various other
Rent Acts. All the grounds for eviction of a tenant of residential
premises are not made grounds for eviction of a tenant in respect
of commercial premises. Section 14{1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Act
provides that non-user of the residential premises by the tenant G
for a period of six months immediately before the filing of the
application for the recovery of possession of the premises will be
a good ground for eviction, though in case of commercial premises
no such provision is made. Similarly, Section 14{1){e) which makes
bona fide requirement of the landlord of-the premises let out to
the tenant for residential purposes a ground for eviction of the H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A tenant, is not made applicable to commercial premises."

It is also appropriate to state that a commercial tenancy is much
more valuable and precious than a residential tenancy. In the above
decision of the Supreme Court, this aspect was highlighted to the following
effect in paragraph 34 of the Judgment thus:
B
"B~iness carried on by a tenant of commercial premises may be
and often is, his only occupation and the source of livelihood of a ...
tenant and his family. Out of the income earned by the tenant from
his business in the commercial premises, the tenant maintains
c himself and his family; and the tenant, if he is residing in a tenanted
house, may also be paying his rent out of the said income. Even if
a tenant is evicted from his residential prebuses, he may with the
earnings out of the business be in a position to arrange for some
other accommodation for his residence With his family. When,
D however, a tenant is thrown out of the commercial premises his
business which enables him to maintain himself and his family
comes to a standstill. It is common Knowledge that it is much more
difficult to find suitable business premises than to find suitable
premises for residence. It is not secret that for securing commercial
accommodation, large sums of money by way of salami, even
E though not legally payment, may have to be paid and rents of
commercial premises are usually very high. Beside, a business
which has been carried on for years at a particular place has it own
goodwill and other distinct advantages. The death of the person who
happens to be the tenant of the commercial premises and who was
F running the business out of the income of which the family used
to be maintained, is itself a great loss to the members of the family
to whom the death, naturally, comes as a great blow. Usually, on
the death of the person who runs the business and maintains his
family out of the income of the business, the other members of the
family who suffer the bereavement have necessarily to carry on the
G business for the maintenance and support of the family . .rt rnnning
business is indeed a very valuable asset and often a great source of
comfort to the family as the business keeps the family going.......... It
could never have been the intention of the Legislature that the
entire family of a tenant depending upon the business carried on.
H by the tenant will be completely stranded and the business carried
GAURISHANKER v. U.0.1.[PARIPOORNAN,J.) 257

on for years in the premises which had been let out to the tenant A
must stop functioning at the premises which the heirs of the
deceased tenant must necessarily vacate ........... It may also be
borne in mind that in case of commercial premises the heirs of the
deceased tenant not only succeed to the tenancy rights in the
premises but they succeed to the business as a whole ............ Com- B
mercial premises are let out only to individuals but also to Com-
panies, Corporations and other statutory bodies having a juristic

-· personality. In fact, tenancies in respect of commercial premises
are usually taken by companies and corporation. When the tenant
is a Company or a Corporation or anybody with juristic personality,
question of the death of the tenant will not arise. Despite the C
termination of the tenancy, the Company or the Corporation or
such juristic personalities, however, will go on enjoying the protec-
tion afforded to the tenant under the Act."

9. It is evident from the above decision of the Constitution Bench of D
this Court that a commercial tenancy is invaluable and has got distinct
features and characteristics of its own different from that a residential
tenancy. None of the peculiar or unique features present in the case of
commercial tenancies exist in the case of residential tenancies. In the above
background, if the legislature thought it fit to afford a greater and extended
right or benefit to the heirs of the statutory tenants of commercial E
premises and not to extend such rights to the heirs of the statutory tenants
of residential premises, we should say that it only stands to reason and
reckons the stark realities of the prevailing situation. The protection af-
forded by the Rent Act to a tenant after the termitiation of the tenancy
and to the h~irs of the tenant is only a creation of the Act and it is open F
to the legislature to make appropriate provisions in that behalf. It can make
suitable and appropriate provisions in the Act with regard to the nature &
extent of the benefit and protection to be so enjoyed and the manner in
which the same is to· be enjoyed. In the above perspective, we are of the
view that the provisions in section 2(1)(iii) of the Act, which seeks to G
restrict or limit the right of the heirs, in so far as the statutory tenants of
residential premises are concerned and to the extent provided therein, are
not in any way discriminatory and do not offend the guarantee under
Article 14 of the Constitution. This is not a case where the residential
tenancy and the commercial tenancy are similarly placed. They belong to
two different categories with distinct feature and characteristics of their H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A own. No question of discrimination arises. In this context; it is only proper
to quote the following observations in Sakhawat Ali v. The State of Orissa,
(1955] 1 SCR 1004, at page 1010, which is apposite :

"....... ~egislation en"~ted for the achievement of a particular object
or purpose need to be. all embracing. It is for the Legislature to
B determine what categories it would embrace within the scope of
legislation and merely because certain categories which would stand
on the same footing as those which are covered by the legislation are
left out would not render legislation which has been enacted in any
manner discriminatory and violative of the fundamental right
c guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution."

Nor are we impressed by the plea that the right to shelter is a guarantee
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and so the abridgment or
limitation placed on the rights of the legal heirs in the case of a statutory
tenancy of residential premises makes an inroad into the rights of the
D tenant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We hold that the
Statutory tenancies regarding residential premises are distinct and different
from statutory tenancies regarding commercial premises and the limitations
or the restrictions placed by section 2(1)(iii) of the Act on the rights of the
heirs of the statutory tenants of residential premises are reasonable, fair
E and just in all the circumstances of the case. There is no violation of the
guarantee enshrined in Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

10. We hold that section 2{1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
is not open to attack on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India. The said provision is not in any manner
F either unfair or unjust or absurd. There is not merit in their batch of cases.
The Writ Petitions are dismissed with costs. The special Leave Petition is
rejected.

T.N.A. Petitions dismissed.