MUKANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUMERPUR is a town in the District of Pali with a population of about 10,000 persons. The State Government by its notification dated 10th of December, 1968, while exercising its power under Section 2 extended the provisions of the rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950 (hereinafter called the act) to the town of Sumerpur from the date the said notification was published in the official Gazette.

(2.) PETITIONER who is a resident of Sumerpur has challenged this notification, inter alia, on the ground that Section 2 1 (2) of the Act confers naked and arbitrary powers on the Government to apply the provisions of the Act to any town in the state and, therefore, this power is discriminatory and violates the guarantee embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution. While comparing the population of the towns of Sojat. Sadri and Bali which are three important towns situate in the district of Pali, the petitioner contends that the application of the provisions of the act to Sumerpur definitely violates Article 14 of the Constitution, and it is, (therefore, prayed that Section 2 (2) of the Act be declared ultra vires of the constitution and the notification issued by the State Government while exercising power under Section 2 of the Act be quashed.

(3.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the State stating that Sumerpur Is a fast growing important Mandi and commercial centre and it is also a commercial centre for agricultural implements and tractor parts, etc. There is great dearth of housing accommodation In Sumerpur town as compared to Soiat, Sadri end Bali and there is great pressure on the house accommodation in Sumerpur, the landlords do indulge themselves in sky rocketing the rents and harassing the tenants. It is contended that the Act has been enacted by the Legislature to check the above mentioned evils and looking to all these conditions it was found necessary for the state Government to extend the provisions of the Act to the town of Sumerpur. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner's petition be dismissed with costs.