Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
RAGHUNATH GOPAL MANJIRE & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1977
BENCH:
UNTWALIA, N.L.
BENCH:
UNTWALIA, N.L.
KAILASAM, P.S.
CITATION:
1978 AIR 252 1978 SCR (2) 193
1977 SCC (4) 578
ACT:
Bombay Housing Board Act, 1942, Ss. 66, 67(1), 68, 73A r/w
Board’s Regulations 3, 4, 6 and 7 and Government of India
letter No. 5/24/62/H-1 dated 20-4-66-Scope of Whether the
State has the power to give directions ,and the Board to
enhance the rent and demand the past and future rent.
HEADNOTE:
Pursuant to the scheme for construction of houses for
industrial workers to be let to them at a subsidised rent
framed by the Government of India in 1946, the State of
Bombay passed the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948. ’Section
66 of the Act empowered the State Government to make rules
for carrying out the purposes of the said Act. Section 67
provided that the ’Housing Board, a statutory body, created
under s. 3 of the Act "may from time to time with the
previous sanction of the State Government, make regulations
consistent with this Act and that of any rule made under
this Act." Section 68 also empowered the Board to make its
bye-laws. Section 73A of the Act further provided that ’the
State Government may give the Board such directions as in
its opinion are necessary and expedient for carrying out the
purposes of the Act. It shall be the duty of the Board to
comply with such directions." The Board framed u/s 67 the
relevant regulations for implementing the scheme.
Regulation 3 classified the residential tenements into (i)
those exclusively reserved for industrial workers and (ii)
those open to the general public for the low income groups
(including industrial workers). As per Regulation 3
"tenements in class (i) shall be let at such subsidised
rates as Government may by special orders fix, while
tenements in class (ii) shall be let at the economic rent
calculated in accordance with the formula decided by
Government from time to time.". Eligibility for the
unreserved tenements as per regulation 6 was limited by the
maximum total income of all the earning. members of the
applicant’s family proposing to lodge together. Under
regulation 7 "the maximum limit of family income in relation
to subsidised Tents shall be Rs. 350/- per mensem and in
relation to economic rent Rs. 500/- per mensem." As per
regulation 19 the successful applicants were required to
execute an agreement in Form 11 and also give an undertaking
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
to pay the rent and service charges including water tax and
other charges as may, from time to time, be levied and or
fixed by or on behalf of the Board and also to accept its
addition as final and binding.
The appellants are industrial workers, who were allotted
tenements in 1959 as per the tenancy agreements executed by
them in accordance with the regulation 19 in Form II and
were paying a subsidised rent of Rs. 27/plus the monthly
service charges. They have also given the prescribed under-
taking. As per the decision taken at the Housing Ministers"
Conference in December 1964 regarding retention of house
built under the subsidised industrial schemes by allottees
on their crossing the wage limit of Rs. 350/per month and
communicated by the Government of India through its letter
No. 524/62/H-1 dt. 20th April 1966, the State Government, in
its turn, wrote to the Board on 8-7-1967, to the effect
that, consequent to the clarifications of the Government of
India that tenements constructed under the subsidised
industrial housing schemes are to be allotted to the
industrial workers whose monthly income does not exceed Rs.
350/- on payment of subsidised rent only and that those who
have crossed the wage limit of Rs. 350/- per mensem
subsequently are neither entitled to retain the tenements,
nor to get subsidy in rent beyond three months’ from the
date of crossing, it has considered sympathetically the
question of eviction of workers who had crossed the
prescribed wage limit of Rs. 350/- per mensem and decided
that such tenants who have exceeded wage limit of Rs. 350/-
should be allowed to retain the tenements by charging them
graded increase. Notices were, therefore,
194
issued by the Board on 10-10-1972 and 31-1-73 to appellants
2 and 1 calling: upon them to pay the enhanced rent with
effect from 20th April 1966 and 1-2-1968 respectively. The
appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay
challenging enhanced demand of rent from them both for the
past and the future periods which was dismissed. The writ
appeal failed before the Division Bench in view of the other
Division Bench decision of the same High Court This Court
granted special leave restricting only to the question as to
whether the enhancement of rent could be made with
retrospective effect.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD : (1) The High Court took a wrong view that the
regulations are not statutory regulations and hence have not
the force as such. [199 H]
Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagat Ram Sardar Singh Raghubanshi
JUDGMENT:
(2)No regulation clearly provides the effect of crossing
the maximum; limit of family income. Different subsidised
rents reducing or enhancing the amount of subsidy can be
fixed by the Government from time to time. Even in absence
of any specific regulation in that regard, on the crossing
of the maximum wage limit, the industrial worker shall not
be entitled to continue in the tenement let out to him on
the subsidised rent fixed on the basis of the income limit
as per regulation 7. He may cease to be a tenant unless and
until the tenement is allottable to him on the increased
wage limit or he may be liable to pay the economic rent or
full economic rent on the crossing of the wage limit. As
per clause 17 of the agreement, the tenancy could be
terminated by one month’s notice. [200 A-D]
(3) The wording in the undertaking are capable of the
meaningthat the subsidised rent originally fixed was a
provisional one. it could beincreased or enhanced by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
Board even from the date of allotment and theindustrial
worker would be liable to pay the same. [201-B]
(4) The directions given by the State Government in the
letterdated 8th July 1967 would be squarely covered by
s. 73A of the Act. The direction was in no sense either
contrary to the regulations or to the terms of the agreement
and the undertaking. On the other hand’, it was for the
purpose of removing the ambiguity which had remained in
them. It was quite fair and reasonable to reduce the
subsidy and demand the enhancement or the economic rent as
the case may be on crossing of a particular wage limit. [203
F-G]
(5)It was within the power of the State Government to give
direction charging the enhanced rent from a back period- as
and when the maximum wage limit had been crossed by a
particular industrial worker giving him the, concession of
three months’ period. [203 H]
(6)In the instant case, appellant No. 1 had crossed the
wage limit before 20th April 1966 and appellant No. 2 with
effect from 1-11-1967. Demands of enhanced rent on and from
20-4-1966 and 1-2-1968 were in no Way contrary to the law,
the regulations and the terms of the agreement and the
undertaking. The industrial workers were not entitled to
insist to continue in the tenancy on a particular subsidized
concessional rate of rent which had been initially fixed on
the basis of their being below the wage limit of Rs. 350/-
per month in relation to their family income [1917 A-G, 204
A-B]
&
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal N0. 1750 of
1975..
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 21st February 1975 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal
No. 48/71.
G. L. Sanghi, S. H. Kapadia and B. R. Agarwala for the
Appellants.
S. T. Desai, D. D. Kango, J.B. Dadachanji, P. C. Bharruri
and
K. J. John, for Respondent No. 3.
195
Y. S. Desai and M. N. Shroff for Respondent No. 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J.-Special leave in this appeal from the judgment
of the Bombay High Court was granted restrict only to the
question as to whether the enhancement of rent could be made
with retrospective effect. We are, therefore, concerned
to decide the said question only.
In the year 1946 the Government of India drew up a Scheme
for construction of houses for industrial workers and to let
them out to them at a subsidised rent. The then State of
Bombay (now Maharashtra) passed Bombay Housing Board Act,
1948-hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, to, provide
for measures to be taken to deal with and satisfy the need
of housing accommodation. In accordance with section 3, the
Maharashtra Housing Board, a Statutory corporate body was
constituted. Chapter III of the Act provided for the making
of the housing schemes by the Board in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and subject to the control of the
State Government. Elaborate machinery was provided for the
framing and the implementation of the schemes. Section 66
empowered the State Government to make rules for carrying
out the purposes of the Act. Subject to the overall control
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
and power of the State Government as provided for in sub-
section (2) of section 67, sub-section (1) thereof states :
"The Board may from time to time, with the
previous sanction of the State Government,
make regulations consistent with this Act and
with any rules made under this Act-
(a) for the management and use of buildings
constructed under any housing scheme;
(b) the principles to be followed in
allotment of tenements and premises;
(c) the remuneration and conditions of
service of the Housing Commissioner
and other officers and servants of the Board
under section 13;
(d) for regulating its procedure and the
disposal of its business."
The Board was also empowered to make bye-laws under section
68. We shall not be concerned in this case with the Bombay
Housing Board Rules, 1949 framed by the State Government.
But the relevant Regulations framed by the Board will have
to be referred to.
At the outset we may state the necessary facts in relation
to the two appellants-Shri R. C. Manjire and Shri A. L.
Raghavan Nair, appellants 1 and 2 respectively.’ Although
the said two appellants had purported to file the writ
petition and the writ appeal in the High Court on behalf of
themselves and other industrial worker tenant,-, of the
Board residing in Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Bombay, and they
purported to follow up the matter by filing the special
leave petition in a
196
representative capacity the appeal was, however, argued, as
it appears, due to non-compliance of some stay order
passed by this Court by the other workers, as if it was an
appeal by the said two appellants only.
Any way that will not be of any material consequence because
our decision in this appeal, obviously, will govern the
rights and liabilities of the other industrial workers
similarly situated.
The first appellant who was an industrial worker employed
with Premier Automobiles Ltd., Kurla was allotted tenement
No. 54/1916 as per the tenancy agreement dated the 19th
January, 1959. executed in Form II appended to the
Regulations. The subsidised rent fixed was Rs. 27/- per
month plus the monthly service charges of Rs. 6/-. Similarly
appellant no. 2 who was an industrial worker employed with
Indian Rare Earths Limited was allotted tenement no.
26/921 in Tilak Nagar at the same subsidised rent of Rs.
27/- per month plus the monthly service charges of Rs. 7.50.
The allotment to him was also made sometime in the year 1959
on the basis of a similar agreement. Such allotments are
said to have been made in respect of about 4,000 tenants.
A notice dated the 10th of October, 1972 was given to
appellant no. 2 by the Board stating therein :
"Tenements constructed under the Subsidised
Industrial Housing Scheme are allotted to the
Industrial Worker whose monthly income does
not exceed Rs. 350/- on payment of subsidised
rent only. Those who have crossed the wage
limit of Rs. 350/- p.m. subsequently are not
entitled to retain the tenements, nor are they
entitled to get subsidy in rent. The question
of eviction of workers who had crossed the
prescribed wage limit of Rs. 350/- p.m. has
been considered sympathetically and the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
Government have been pleased to order that
such tenants who have exceeded wage limit of
Rs. 350/- should be allowed to retain the
tenements by charging them graded increase
w.e.f. 20.4.66 as; under:-
1) Wage group of workers between
40% of the interest charges Rs. 351 /- to Rs.
425/- p.m.on the subsidy for construction of
the house.
2)Wage group of workers between 80% do Rs.
426/- to Rs. 5001- p.m.
(3) Persons who are exceeding the limit of
Rs. 5001shall be charged full economic
rent.
(4) In partial modification of the above,
the Government have been pleased to charge
w.e.f. 26.11..59 50% of the interest charges
on the subsidy for construction of the house
from industrial worker tenants whose
197
monthly/income is in the range of Rs. 350/- to
Rs.500/-.
(5) On enquiry from your employers M/s
Indian Rare Earths )Ltd. it is learnt that
your income exceeded Rs. 350/- p.m. w.e.f.
1.11.67. You are as such allowed to avail the
concession to pay the subsidised rent for 3
months from that date, and you are liable to
be charged graded rent from 1.2.68.
In view of the above orders of the Government, you have been
:assessed graded rent/economic rent as detailed below -
1.Income between Rs. 350/- to Rs. 4-25/- from = Rs. 48.00
1.2.68to 30-4.69 @ 40% i. e. Rs. 3.20 p.m.
2.Income between Rs. 425/- and 500 from Rs. = 32.00
1.5.69to 30.9.69 @ 80% i.e. Rs. 6.40 p.m.
3. Income between above Rs. 500/- from 1-10-69 to 30-6-72
(Diff, between as per standard E.C.
dt. 6-12-71 &and eco. rent
23.11.71@,50% 27.02= Rs. 891-66
TotalRs. 971.66
The total amount thus payable by you for the period from
1.2.68 to 30.6.72 works out to Rs. 971.66; you are requested
to pay the above arrears within 10 days from the date of
issue of this letter.
You are further advised to start paying rent from 1.7.72
onward at increased rate of Rs. 55.68 p.m. inclusive of ser-
vice charges as your monthly income is in the range of Rs.
351/- to 425, 426 to Rs. 5001- and above Rs. 500/- p.m. If
you fail to pay the increased amount as intimated, it will
be presumed that you are not accepting the, increase and are
not interested to retain the tenement and further action as
permissible will be pursued to effect the recovery of amount
and to take vacant possession of the tenement from you."
A similar notice dated the 30th January, 1973 was given to
appellant no. 1 stating therein that in his case the income
limit had exceeded prior to 20.4.66 and he was liable to be
charged graded rent w.e.f. that date. Accordingly arrears
of rent to the time of Rs. 2,154,91 were demanded from him
for the period 20.4.66 to 31.12.72 and he was asked to pay
on and from 1st of January, 73 an increased rate of rent of
Rs. 56.26 per month ’inclusive of service charges.
The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court
challenging the enhanced demand of rent from them both for
the past and the future
198
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
periods. Their writ petition was dismissed by a learned
Single Judge of the High Court and their writ appeal failed
before the Division. Bench in view of another Division
Bench decision of the High Court given a few months earlier
in an identical matter in the case of some other industrial
workers. Hence this appeal in which the only question to be
decided is about the demand for the arrears of enhanced
rent.
Regulation 3 says:
"All residential tenements constructed or
reconditioned under the Housing Programme
approved by the Government shall be classified
in accordance with Government’s directions
into (i) those exclusively reserved for
Industrial Workers, and (ii) those open to the
general public for the low income groups
(including Industrial Workers.)"
The relevant portion of Regulation 4 runs thus
"Tenements in class (i) shall be let at such
subsidised rents as Government may, by special
orders fix, while tenements in class (ii)
shall be let at the economic rent calculated
in accordance with the formula decided by
Government from time to time."
Eligibility for the unreserved tenements as per Regulation 6
was, limited by the maximum total income of all the earning
members of the applicant’s family proposing to lodge
together. As per Regulation 7 "the maximum limit of family
income in relation to subsidised rents shall be Rs. 350/-
per mensem and in relation to economic rent Rs. 500/- per
mensem." In accordance with Regulation 19 the successful
applicants were required to execute an agreement in Form II
appended to the Regulations. As already stated, the two
appellants executed the agreement in Form II and over and
above that on the, date of the execution of the agreement
also gave an undertaking in writing which to all intents and
purposes forms part of the agreement. It may, in passing,
be stated here that some forms of undertaking are also
appended to the Regulations but the relevant undertaking
with which we are concerned in this appeal was of a
different nature, yet undoubtedly was binding on the
appellants.
We may refer to some relevant clauses of the agreement
executed by the appellants. They are:
"2. To pay such increase in the said monthly rent and other
charges as the Board may consider it fit or expedient to
impose on account of any increase in such rates, taxes
cesses or other service charges or on account of any
additions and/or alterations to or any conveniences provided
at the said premises or the building in which the same are
situate.
17. The tenancy wilt be terminable by either side giving to
the other, one clear calender month’s notice ........
199
1 6-A. As the said premises have been let out
to me at a subsidised rent by reason of my
being an Industrial worker governed by the
factory act 1948 the tenancy shall cease
forthwith as soon as I cease to be an
industrial worker.
B. In June and December every year
necessarily and at any other time if and when
required by the Board I shall supply a
certificate that I continue to be an indus-
trial worker and other detailed information
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
about the total monthly income i.e. pay,
allowances etc. of myself and all the earning
members of family residing with me together
with necessary certificates from the
respective employers of each such earning
member.
20. The tenancy shall be subject to the
provisions of the Maharashtra Housing Board
Act, 1948 and the Rules, Regulations and bye-
laws thereunder for the time being in force.
22. I agree that the undertakings in the
application form and other undertakings signed
by me this day and attached to the Tenancy
Agreement form part of this tenancy
agreement."
The relevant words of the undertaking read as
follows
"This is to record that I, R. G. Manjire have
been allotted by the Maharashtra Housing Board
tenement No. 1916 in Block No. 54 at
Government Housing Colony, Chembur with effect
from 9.1.59 by virtue of my being an
Industrial Worker and that the subsidised rent
for the above tenement inclusive of service
charges has been provisionally fixed at Rs.
27/- per month and the service charges have
also been provisionally fixed at Rs. 6/- per
month and ate liable to be increased. I
record that I have agreed and undertaken to
pay the rent and service charges including
water tax and other charges as may be from
time to time be levied and, or fixed by or on
behalf of the Board to accept its decision as
final and binding. I have also agreed an
d
bound myself to pay to the Board the excess
being the difference between the present and
the revised rate of rent and service charges
from the date of allotment on receipt of such
intimation from or on behalf of the Estate
Manager, Maharashtra Housing Board, Bombay and
to accept the revised rate of rent and service
charges for the future as well."
Initially the question which was canvassed before us and
falls for’ our determination is whether the Board was
entitled to charge enhanced rent as per the terms of the
Regulations, the agreement and the undertaking on the ground
that on the crossing of the wage limit mentioned in
Regulation 7 the tenant became liable to pay enhanced rent
as soon as he crossed the maximum wage limit. The High
Court has taken the view that the Regulations are not
statutory Regulations and have not the force as such. But
this seems to be contrary to the
200
decision of this Court in Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram
Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and anr(1) For the decision of the
point at issue, however, it will not make any difference.
No Regulation clearly provides the effect of crossing the
maximum limit of family income. As per Regulation 4
tenements in class (i) or in class (ii) can be let out at
such subsidised rents as Government may by special orders
fix or at the economic rent calculated in accordance with
the formula decided by Government from time to time.
Different subsidised rents, reducing or enhancing the amount
of subsidy can be fixed by the Government from time to time.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
But one thing is clear, even in absence of any specific
Regulation in that regard, that on the crossing of the
maximum wage limit, the industrial worker shall not be
entitled to continue in the tenement let out to him on the
subsidised rent fixed on the basis of the income limit as
per Regulation 7. Out of the consequences mentioned
hereinafter, either one or the other may follow. He may
cease to be a tenant unless and until the tenement is
allotted to, him on the basis of the increased wage limit or
he may be liable to pay the economic rent or full economic
rent on the crossing of the wage limit. Even assuming that
this result does not automatically follow, on the general
principles of law in absence of a clear Regulation being
there, the tenancy could be terminated by one months’ notice
as per clause (17) of the agreement. The terms of the
agreement and the undertaking are also ambiguous and not
clear enough to entitle the Board to claim enhanced rent
from an industrial worker on his crossing the particular
wage limit. The terms are capable of an interpretation
which may be favourable either to the Board or to the
industrial worker. The High Court has interpreted them in
favour of the former Although we are not prepared to say
that the interpretation) put by the High Court is
necessarily wrong, because of the ambiguity of the,
language, as we shall presently show, we do not propose to
rest our judgement on such interpretation of the terms only.
Clause (2) of the agreement is concerned with increase in
the monthly rent and other charges as the Board may consider
fit or expedient to impose "on account of any increase in
such rates, taxes cesses or other service charges or an
account of any additions and/or alterations to or any con-
veniences provided at the said premises or the building in
which the same are situate." The said clause does not cover
a case of increase of rent by reduction of subsidy on the
ground of increase in the wage limit. Clause (18-A)
provides that the tenancy shall cease as km as the tenant
ceases to be an industrial worker. But then clause,
(18-B)requires him to give certain information including
a detailed’ information about his total monthly family
income. The purpose of this requirement obviously is to
find out whether a particular industrial worker has crossed
the wage limit, if so, when Yet, as a follow up action, no
clear clause is to be found in the agreement providing for
reduction of subsidy and increase of rent on the crossing of
a particular wage limit.
Similarly the phraseology of the undertaking which we have
extracted above is also too vague and ambiguous to enable us
to say that that
(1)[1975] 3 S.C.R. 619.
201
by itself can undoubtedly lead to the conclusion that the
Board could enhance the rent on the crossing of the wage
limit by an industrial worker.It is no doubt true that
the undertaking mentions that the rentfixed was
provisional and that the worker under took to pay the rent
and service charges as may from time to time be levied and
fixed by and on behalf of the Board. But in the sentence
following the said words the use of the expression "date
of allotment" created the difficulty in our straightaway
accepting the interpretation put by the High Court as
correct. It appears to us that the wordings in the
undertaking are capable of the meaning that the subsidised
rent originally fixed was a provisional one. It could be
increased and enhanced by the Board even from the date of
allotment and the industrial worker would be liable to pay
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
the same. But we remained curious to know as to why a clear
provision was not made either in the Regulations or in the
agreement and the undertaking to say, as obviously it could
be done, as to what will be the consequences which would
follow when an industrial worker crossed the maximum wage
limit. Mr. Sanghi for the appellants and M/s S. T. Desai
and V. S. Desai for the respondents Board and State of
Maharashtra endeavored to put interpretations which were
favorable to their respective clients. But feeling some
difficulty in accepting either of the two rival contentions
to our satisfaction, we proceeded to examine further the
additional submissions made on behalf of the Board. And
that to our mind put the matter beyond any doubt.
Our attention was drawn to letter No. 5/24/62-HI dated the
20th April, 1966 written by the Government of India,
Ministry of Works, Housing and Urban Development to the
Housing Secretaries of all Governments drawing their
attention to the earlier letter dated the 19th January, 1966
of the Government of India, the relevant portion of which
says-
"that the recommendation of the Housing
Minister’s Conference held at Chandigarh in
December, 1964, regarding retention of houses
built under the subsidized Industrial Housing
Scheme by allottees on their crossing the
wage-limit of Rs. 350/- per month, has been
considered further by the Government of India
and the following decisions have been taken :-
(i)An eligible worker, so long as he
remains as industrial worker, may be allowed
to retain the house allotted to him even after
crossing the prescribed wage limit of Rs.
3501- p.m. till he reaches the wage limit of
Rs. 5001- p.m.
(ii)No worker who has crossed the wage limit
of Rs. 500/- p.m. should be allowed to retain
the house from the date his wages exceed, the
above mentioned limit.
(iii)Workers, who cross the wage limit of Rs.
350/- p.m. should not be allowed to retain the
houses on the full
202
subsidized rent. In their case the element of
subsidy in rent should be gradually reduced
and they should be required to pay additional
charges over and above the subsidized rent, as
follows::-
Wage Group of Workers Additional charges
(1) RS. 351/- to RS. 425/- 40% & 80% of the interest
pet month charges on the subsidy for
(2) Rs. 426/- to Rs. 500/- construction of the house res-
per month pectively.
Paragraphs (3) and (5) of the letter dated the 20th of
April, 1966 state further as follows :
"(3) These workers, who having crossed the
wage limit of Rs. 350/- p.m. are entitled to
pay subsidized rent for a period of three
months in accordance with the instructions
contained in this Ministry’s letter No.
5/1/164-HI, dated the 30th April, 1964, may be
allowed to avail of this concession for the
above mentioned period of three months only
and thereafter they will be required to pay
additional charges as indicated in sub-para
1(iii) above.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
(5) The State Governments are requested to
take further action in pursuance of the above
decision."
Pursuant to the letter aforesaid the State Government wrote
to the Board, a letter dated the 8th July, 1967 stating
therein :-
"I am directed to state that tenements
constructed under the Subsidized
Industrial Housing Scheme are allotted to
industrial Workers whose monthly income does
not exceed Rs. 350/-. It was however
pointed out by the Accountant General,
Maharashtra, Bombay, that certain industrial
workers who had crossed the income limit of
Rs. 350 per month were being charged
subsidized rent by the BoardIn the absence
of any clear and specific provisions it was
allalong assumed that the income limit laid
down under the Scheme is to be enforced only
at the time of initial allotment.
2.The question of eviction of workers who
had crossed the prescribed wage limit of Rs.
350/- per month was discussed in the 8th
Housing Minister Conference held at Chandigarh
in December, 1964 and as a result the
Government of India have directed the State
Government to take action in pursuance of the
decision contained in their letter No.
5/24/62/HI, dated the 20th April, 1966 (copy
enclosed).
3.The instructions contained in the
Government of India’s letter referred to
above, have been examined and it has now been
decided by Government as follows :-
(i) The industrial workers who have crossed
the wage limit of Rs. 350/- but whose wages do
hot exceed
203
Rs. 500/- should be charged additional rent
over and above the subsidized rent in
accordance with the decisions contained in the
Government of India letter from the said date,
as follows, after giving them due notices as
required under the Regulations.
Wage group of workers Additional charges
(1) Rs. 351/-to Rs. 425/- 40% & 80% of the interest
per month charges on the subsidy for
construction of the house,
espectively."
(2) RS. 426/-to Rs. 500/-
per month
(ii)The industrial workers who have crossed
income limit of Rs. 500/- p.m. on 20th April,
1966, or from a subsequent date, should be
charged economic rent from this date,.
Arrangements may however, be made to provide
them accommodation under the Middle Income,
Group Housing Scheme, to the extent possible
and in the event of their refusing to pay
economic rent or agreeing to shift to the
tenements provided for them under the Middle
Income Group Housing Scheme, necessary steps
for eviction should be taken."
It appears pursuant to the direction of the State Government
contained in their letter dated the 8th July, 1967, notices
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
started being given-to the various industrial workers. Of
course, the notices which were given to the appellants were
after great delay of about more than five years.
Nonetheless the demand made in the notice is in accordance
with the said direction of the State Government.
Section 73A of the Act provides :-
"The State Government may give the Board such
directions as in its opinion are necessary or
expedient for carrying out the purposes of
this Act. It shall be the duty of the Board
to comply with such directions."
It is manifest that the directions given by the State
Government in ’their letter dated the 8th July, 1967 would
be squarely covered by the provision of law aforesaid and
the Board was obliged to comply with it. The direction was
in no sense either contrary to the Regulations or to the
terms of the agreement and the undertaking. On the other
hand, it was for the purpose of removing the ambiguity which
’-,ad remained in them. It was quite fair and reasonable to
reduce the subsidy and demand the enhanced or the economic
rent, is the case may be, on the crossing of a particular
wage limit. Appellant no. 1 had crossed that wage limit
before the 20th of April, 1966. Demand of enhanced rent on
and from that date was in no way contrary to the law, the
Regulations and the terms of the agreement and the under-
taking. It was within the power of the State Government to
give the direction charging the enhanced rent from a back
period as and when the maximum wage limit bad been crossed
by a particular industrial worker, of course, giving him the
concession of three months period.
204
Mr. Sanghi’s contention that no demand for enhanced rent or
economic rent in respect of a period prior to the giving to
the notice could be made is not sound and hence not
acceptable to us. It must be emphasised, as we have already
indicated above, that the industrial, worker was not
entitled to insist to continue in the tenancy on a parti-
cular subsidized confessional rate of rent which had been
initially fixed. on the basis of his being below the wage
limit of Rs. 350/- per month in relation to his family
income.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the decision of the
High Court although on a somewhat different basis and
dismiss this appeal. In the circumstances, however, we
shall make no order as to costs.
S. R Appeal dismissed
205