The Uttar Pradesh government had reserved 50 per cent of the seats for the post of assistant teachers in schools for female candidates. Some candidates challenged the order inter alia on the grounds that such reservation was discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that because there were many girl students below the age of 10, it was preferable that women taught them. Article 15(3) of the Constitution enables the state to make such provisions, the court ruled (Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh).
The Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act prohibits a landlord from initiating eviction proceedings if he occupies another building for his own use in the same urban area. The landlords, who were two brothers occupying the first floor, filed proceedings to evict tenants from the ground floor. But, as one brother had been living elsewhere for a while, the tenant contended that the brothers occupied a building for their own use, and hence, couldn’t evict him. The Supreme Court, however, held that the term ‘own use and occupation’ also includes the requirement of the landlord’s dependents and that such terms should be seen in the context of the social milieu (Kailash Chand and Anor vs Dharam Dass).
A divorc?e filed an application for the recovery of maintenance accrued for eight months. Her ex-husband, too, filed an application before the sessions court, and then the high court, to revise the maintenance amount, but did not succeed. The wife then filed another application for the recovery of arrears to the tune of Rs 46,000. The husband refused to pay, contending that the application was time-barred. The apex court rejected his contention and said the subsequent application only quoted the amount due (Shantha vs B.G. Shivananjappa).
SOLON