APEX COURT: SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION IN FAVOUR OF PROPERTIES OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS FOR RENT LAWS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 14 Shajeeda Tajdeen BASICS OF LAW Fri, Dec 06, 2019, at ,10:17 AM While upholding the constitutional validity of the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, the Apex Court on Wednesday (4/12/19), declared that, ‘that separate classification of properties of religious institutions for rent legislation will pass a challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution of India’. The statement of the Apex Court was pronounced by a bench headed by Justice NV Ramana, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Krishna Murari, while they were entertaining an appeal filed against the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in the case of Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab. Previously the Punjab and Haryana High Court had rejected the contention that the Religious Premises Act paves way for an artificial distinction and discriminates against the tenants of "religious institutions", though "religious institutions" as landlords are not a separate class. The Court while considering this also took into notice the special procedure laid down under Religious Premises Act, subsequently the court also recognized that there are a number of central and state legislation wherein religious institutions with or without other charitable organisations have been treated as a separate and distinct class and granted legal treatment related to such distinctiveness within the ambit of the same enactment or other enactments. The Apex Court while mentioning the observations that were made by the Apex Court itself in the case State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi stated that, ‘charitable or religious institutions or endowments fall into a separate category and form a class by themselves. If that is so, tenants coming under them also form a separate class. Therefore, they can be treated differently from other. Further, the Court referred to the case of S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu, and declared that the legislature is authorized and can make reasonable classification of buildings belonging to government and those belonging to religious, charitable, educational and other public institutions which are given different treatment on the well-founded belief that such landlords are not expected to and would not indulge in rack renting or unreasonable eviction. In the said case, it was declared that grant of exemption to buildings belonging to charities, religious or secular institutions, from rent control legislation, would not offend the equal protection clause of Article 14 of the Constitution as it is a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia and also satisfies the test of nexus as such institutions not only serve public purpose but disbursement of their income is governed by the objects for which they are created. The Court also noted the judgement of the Constitution Bench in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Another v. Punjab National Bank, in which it dismissed the challenge to the vires of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 after recording that the property belonging to the government would fall under a separate class and that the government, while dealing with the citizens in respect of the property belonging to it, would not act for its own purpose as a private landlord but would act in public interest. lastly, the Court while rejecting the appeal mentioned that, ‘What has been said about the Public Premises Act would be equally applicable to the legislations made by the State legislature of the State of Punjab in respect of the two enactments under consideration, that is, the East Punjab Rent Act and the Religious Premises Act. No doubt, in this decision it has been observed that the underlying reason for exclusion of property belonging to the government from the ambit of the Rent Control Act is that the government while dealing with the citizens in respect of property belonging to it would not act as a private landlord but would act in public interest, albeit this reasoning would not act as a private landlord but would act in public interest, albeit this reasoning would equally apply to "religious institutions" as defined. The religious institutions as held are meant to carry out public purpose and the legislature can proceed accordingly that the religious institutions would act in public interest for which they were established."