SC QUASHES SECTION 13(2) OF CHHATTISGARH RENT CONTROL ACT Disha Gupta BASICS OF LAW Sat, Dec 14, 2019, at ,09:00 AM SC QUASHES SECTION 13(2) OF CHHATTISGARH RENT CONTROL ACT BACKGROUND: The section 13(2) of Chattisgarh Rent Control Act mentions that- Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal shall lie with the Supreme Court, Similar Provision of the Repealed Act. When a landlord lets out his home on rent, or when a tenant occupies a rental home, such activities fall under the ambit of the Rent Control Act. Each state has its own Rent Control Act. The Act ensures that tenants cannot be evicted from the premises, without sufficient cause. The Act contains various protections for tenants facing eviction. Similarly, the Act mandates that no landlord can cut off or withhold any essential supply or service enjoyed by a tenant, without just or sufficient cause. The Act states that in the event a tenant has alternate accommodation available, a landlord can enforce their right and recover the rented premises. CURRENT ISSUE The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, and comprising Indira Banerjee, Vinit Saran, MR Shah and Ravindra Bhat held that the state legislature doesn't hold the power to enact legislations that would alter the jurisdiction of the Apex Court of India, It is, therefore, section 13 (2) of the Rent Control Act (RCA) is ultra vires the Constitution. In providing for this direct appeal, the State Legislature has transgressed its legislative power, the Court held. The Chhattisgarh State Assembly lacked the jurisdiction or the competence to enact any law that affects the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Court held that in view of Entry 65 of the State List and Entry 46 of the Concurrent List, the State Legislature can enact law which affects the jurisdiction of all Courts, including the High Court, except under Articles 226 and 227, but it cannot enact law which touches the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court propounded“A law made under Article 323B (1) of the Constitution may exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 with respect to the matters falling within the jurisdiction of the said Tribunals. However, Article 323B (2) (d) or any other provision of the Constitution does not enable the State Legislature to enact law which provides for statutory appeals to the Supreme Court.” Article 323B (1) states that- The appropriate Legislature may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by tribunals of any disputes, complaints, or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2) with respect to which such Legislature power to make laws. Article 323B (2) refers to matters like levy and collection of taxes, foreign exchange, import-export, industrial and labour disputes, ceiling on urban property and many more. Further, the Court also remarked in this judgment that a Presidential assent does not validate an enactment that is in excess of legislative powers of the State Legislature. The Court also rejected the argument that when a State Law gets the assent of the President of India, that law prevails in the States, in spite of repugnancy (that which is contrary to something else) with an earlier Union law. The Court, however, rejected the said contention and held that under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does not act as a regular court of appeal. The power of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is not to be confused with the appellate power ordinarily exercised by appellate courts and Tribunals under specific statutes. The Court, therefore, concluded that the State Legislature had no power to legislate on the issue of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and thus, Section 13(2) was struck down as null, void, and ultra vires.