KAMAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO ancient maxims viz; (1) Judicis est jus dicere non dare: The judge's duty is to declare law and not to make it and (2) Talis interpretation semper fienda est, ut evitetur absurdum et inconveniens, et ne judicium sit illusorium: That interpretation must be chosen which avoids an absurdity or inconvenience and which does not make a decision of court illusory, are coupled with the controversy involved in the present seventeen writ petitions, whereby the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, hereinafter referred-to as "the New Act" in toto and Section 32 (3) (a) of this New Act and Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, later styled as "the Old Act", have been challenged by declaring them as ultravires to the Constitution of India. Though different reliefs have been sought in these petitions but broadly, they are of three categories.

(2.) THE relief sought in the first set of petitions is to declare the New Act as ultravires to the Constitution of India; in the second set, relief prayed-for is to declare Section 32 (3) (a) of the New Act as ultravires to the Constitution of India and the third set of petitions is about the relief as to declaring Section 6 of the Old Act as ultravires to the Constitution of India vis-a-vis to recall or refer for reconsideration to a larger bench, the judgment passed by this Court on 30-9-1999 in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1193/1997 "khem Chand vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1999 (2) WLC (Raj) p. 228 (RLW 1999 (2) Raj. 908), whereby Section 6 (2) of the Old Act has been declared as ultravires to the Constitution of India.

(3.) AS enumerated in the Statements of Objects & Reasons of the New Act, it appears that while making the statement in the court by the Advocate General with regard to amendment in the New Act when the Constitutional validity of Section 6 (2) of the Old Act was challenged in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1193/1997 "khem Chand vs. State of Rajasthan" reported in 1999 (2) WLC (Raj) 228, the legislature also thought it fit that innumerable changes have been made in the state of premises, its construction value, insecurity in the mind of the landlords in getting the premises vacated which are required by them for their livelihood vis-a-vis safety of the tenants against the exorbitant hike in rent and also keeping certain premises out of the purview of this Act and thereby repealed the Old Law within its competence.