SANT LAL BHARTI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dt. 3rd Mar., 1986, dismissing the Writ Petition in limine under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the appellant before the High Court. The appellant states that he is the owner of certain premises in Punjab. It must, however, be mentioned that the petition is lacking in particulars as to what premises the appellant owned and in respect of which premises the appellant is making the grievances. On this ground it is not possible to decide the question of vires canvassed before the High Court and repeated before us. A petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions must be in the context of certain facts and not in abstract or vacuum. The essential facts necessary to examine the validity of the Act are lacking in this appeal. On this ground the petition was rightly rejected and we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court on this ground alone. Be that as it may as the question of vires of S. 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter called 'the Act', was challenged before the High Court and canvassed before us. It is just as well that we did with that connection.

(2.) Shri S. K. Bagga, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that S. 4 of the said Act is ultra vires the Constitution and unreasonable inasmuch as the section provides that rent prevalent in 1938 the basis for the determination of fair rent if unreasonable and unjust. He urged that pegging the rent prevalent in 1938 the basic rent was inequitable and unjust in the, background of the tremendous rise in prices. But it has to be borne in mind that certain increases have been provided for in S. 4 from the rent prevalent in 1938. It must, however, be remembered that the Act was passed as the preamble of the said Act which states, inter alia, "to restrict the increase of rent". One of the objects of the Act was to restrict the increase in rent. With that object the Act, has provided certain provisions as to fixation of the fair rent. Section 4 of the Act which is under challenge may be conveniently set out as under :-

(3.) It was contended that Section 4 of the Act provides the manner for determining the fair rent. But while laying down the procedure for determining the fair rent it has laid down that the Rent Controller, while determining the fair rent under this section shall take into consideration the prevalent rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during 12 months prior to 1st Jan., 1939. In other words, he has first to determine the rent prevalent in the locality in the year 1938 and then fix the rent accordingly. This it is submitted, was unreasonable and as such arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and would be an interference with the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. There has been according to the appellant, a tremendous rise in prices and as such in pegging the rent at the rate of Act of 1938 in an Act of 1949 was unreasonable. He drew our attention to the relevant provisions of the Rent Act in Assam, Tripura and Haryana where the provisions of fixation of rent according to him were different and were more fair and just and reasonable in comparison and submitted that this provision of the Act in question was unfair and unjust.