In public interest

A petitioner challenged the Gujarat Municipalities Act, which disqualifies a person having more than two children from becoming a councillor. The petitioner said that apart from infringing upon an individual’s fundamental rights, the restriction was inconsistent with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Upholding the provision, however, the Gujarat High Court said that the provision had been enacted in public interest. The court added that due to growing awareness, a wife could no longer be forced to have more than two children. The court also held that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act was not inconsistent with the provision mentioned. (Bharatbhai Dhanjibhai, Nagarwala, vs Collector, Porbandar)

Whose space?

A landlord sought the eviction of his tenant when he felt that the latter, a businessman dealing in garments, had a sub-tenant. The Rent Controller’s office appointed a commissioner who found that a man operated a sewing machine that was fixed to the floor in the tenant’s space. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that this fact alone did not indicate sub-tenancy. When the landlord appealed to the Supreme Court, his plea was dismissed. The court said that there would have been a sub-tenancy only if the original tenant had vacated the space. A tailor operating a sewing machine to assist the tenant in his business on the premises did not prove that the tenant had given up the possession of the space to him. (Nirmal Kanta vs Ashok Kumar)

Fall, not suicide

While trying to board an overcrowded train, a passenger fell off the footboard and died. The Railways Act obligates the railway authorities to pay compensation to a person injured in an “untoward incident” on account of a wrongful or negligent act on the part of the administration, except in cases like suicide, self-inflicted injury etc. To avoid paying the compensation, the railway authorities contended that as the passenger had the option of boarding the next train, his fall should be construed as self-inflicted injury. Disagreeing, the Allahabad High Court held that since the passenger had a valid ticket, his purpose was travel and the fall could not be interpreted as “self-inflicted injury”. (Union of India vs Vidyavati)