http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SANT LAL BHARTI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/12/1987

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) RANGNATHAN, S.

CITATION:  1988 AIR  485            1988 SCR  (2) 107  1988 SCC  (1) 366        JT 1987 (4)   589  1987 SCALE  (2)1249

ACT:      Constitution of  India, 1950:  Articles 14, 32 and 226- petition  challenging  Constitutional  validity  of  certain provisions of  a Statute-Must  be in  the context of certain facts and  not in abstract or vacuum-Legislative wisdom of a legislation-Whether a ground for challenging validity of the Act passed  by one  State in  comparison with  similar  Acts passed by other States.      East Punjab  Urban Rent  Restriction Act, 1949: Section Whether constitutionally  valid-Rent prevalent in 1938 Basis for determination o f fair rent-Whether unreasonable.

HEADNOTE: %      The appellant  filed a  writ petition in the High Court questioning the  vires of s. 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,  1949. He  did not,  however,  mention  the particulars of  the premises  of which  he claimed to be the owner, and  in respect  of which  he was making a grievance. The High  Court dismissed the writ petition in limine. Hence the appeal.      It was  submitted on  behalf of the appellant that s. 4 of the Act was ultra vires the Constitution and violative of Art. 14,  and would  be an interference with the fundamental right guaranteed  under Art.  19(1)(g) and was unreasonable, and unjust  inasmuch as  it provided  that rent prevalent in 1938 should  be taken  as the basis for the determination of higher rent  and that  pegging the rent prevalent in 1938 as the basic rent, was inequitable and unjust in the background of the tremendous rise in prices, and that the provisions of fixation of  rent in  other States  were different  and were more fair and just and reasonable in comparison.      Dismissing the appeal, this Court, ^      HELD: 1.1  A petition  challenging  the  constitutional validity of  certain provisions  must be  in the  context of certain facts and not in abstract or vacuum. [109E]i 108      In the  instant case,  the essential facts necessary to examine the  validity of the Act are lacking. On this ground the petition  was rightly  rejected and  this Court  is  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

inclined to  interfere with  the order  of the High Court on this ground alone. [109E-F]      2.1 Article  14 does not authorise the striking down of a law of one State on the ground that in contrast with a law of another  State on  the same  subject its  provisions  are discriminatory or  different. Nor  does it contemplate a law of the  Centre or of the State dealing with similar subjects being  held   to  be   unconstitutional  by   a  process  of comparative study  of the  provisions of two enactments. The source of  authority for  the two  statutes being different, Art. 14 can have no application. [113C-D]      2.2 Each legislature in the several States has provided the method  of determination  of fair  rent on  the basis of legal conditions, as judged to be, by each such legislature. The legislative  wisdom of  such legislation is not a ground on which the validity of the Act can be challenged. [113B]      2.3 It  must be the function of the legislature of each State to follow the methods considered to be suited for that State, that would be no ground for judging the arbitrariness or unreasonableness  of a particular legislation in question by comparison.  What may be The problem in Madras may not be the problem in Punjab. [113H; 114A]      The Act  in question  was passed  in 1949 and it pegged the rent prevalent in the similar houses in 1938 and as such is not  unreasonable per  se. The rises started tremendously after the end of the Second World War after the partition of the country. It cannot, therefore, be said that per se there is unreasonableness  in fixing  the prices  in  1938  level. [114A-B]      One of  the objects  of the  Act was  to  restrict  the increase in  rent. With  that object,  the Act  as  provided certain  provisions   as  to  fixation  of  the  fair  rent. Therefore, having regard to the specific preamble of the Act there is  nothing unreasonable  in the  Scheme  contemplated under s. 4 of the Act. [114B-C]      Prabhakara Nair  and others  v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, [1987]  4 S.C.C.  238 and  M/s. Raval  & Co. v. K.C. Ramachandran and  others,  A.I.R.  1974  S.C.  818-[1974]  2 S.C.R. 629, referred to. 109

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1637 of 1987.      From the Judgement and order dated 3.3.1986 of the High Court of  Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 1055 of 1986.      S.K. Bagga and Mrs. S.K. Bagga for the Appellant.      R.S. Suri for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab &  Haryana dated  the 3rd  March, 1986 dismissing the Writ Petition  in limine  under Articles  226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

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 Section 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.      Shri S.K.  Bagga, learned  counsel  for  the  appellant submitted that  Section 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 section 4 from the  rent prevalent  in  1938.  In  must,  however,  be remembered that  the Act  was passed  as the preamble of the said Act which states, inter alia, "to restrict the 110 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:           "Section 4  "Determination of  fair rent:  (1) The           Controller shall  on application  by the tenant or           landlord of a building or rented land fix the fair           rent  for  such  building  or  rented  land  after           holding such enquiry as the Controller thinks fit.           (2)  In  determining  the  fair  rent  under  this           section, the  Controller shall  first fix  a basic           rent taking into consideration:-           (a) The  prevailing rates  of rent in the locality           for the  same or  similar accommodation in similar           circumstances during  the twelve  months prior  to           1st January, 1939; and           (b) the  rental value  of such  building or rented           land  if   entered  in   property  tax  assessment           register of  the municipal,  town or notified area           committee, cantonment  board, as  the case  may be           relating to the period mentioned in clause (a);           Provided  that,   not   with   standing   anything           contained in  sub sections  (3), (4)  and (5)  the           fair rent  for any  building in  the Urban area of           Simla shall not exceed the basic rent.           (3) In  fixing the  fair  rent  of  a  residential           building the  Controller may  allow, if  the basic           rent:-           i) in  the case  of a building in existence before           the Ist January, 1939-           (a) does  not exceed  Rs.25 per mensem an increase           not exceeding 81« per cent on basic rent;           (b) exceed  Rs.25 per mensem, an increase but does           not exceed  RS.50  per  mensem,  an  increase  not           exceeding 12-1/2 per cent on such basic rent;           (c) exceeds  RS.50  per  mensem  an  increase  not           exceeding 25 per cent on such basic rent; 111           (ii) in  the case  of building,  constructed on or           after the Ist January, 1939-           (a) does  not exceed Rs.25 per mensem, an increase

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

         not exceeding 25 per cent on such basic rent;           (b) exceeds  Rs.25 but  does not  exceed Rs.50 per           mensem, an  increase not exceeding 37-1/2 per cent           on such basic rent;           (c) exceed  Rs.50  per  mensem,  an  increase  not           exceeding 50 per cent on such basic rent;           (4)  in  fixing  the  fair  rent  of  a  scheduled           building the  controller may  allow, if  the basic           rent-           (i) in  the case of a building in existence before           the Ist January, 1939-           (ii) does not exceed Rs.25 per mensem, an increase           not exceeding 13-1/2 per cent on such basic rent;           (b) exceeds  Rs.25 but  does not  exceed Rs.50 per           mensem, an  increase not exceeding 17« per cent on           such basic rent;           (c) exceed  Rs.50  per  mensem,  an  increase  not           exceeding 303 percent on such basic rent;           (ii) in  the case of a building constructing on or           after the Ist January, 1939           (a) does  not exceed  Rs.25 per mensem an increase           not exceeding 30 percent on such basic rent;           (b) exceeds  Rs.25 but  does not  exceed Rs.50 per           mensem, an  increase not exceeding 42« per cent on           such basic rent;           (c)exceeds  Rs.50  per  mensem,  an  increase  not           exceeding 55 per cent on such basic rent; 112           (5) In  fixing  fair  rent  of  a  non-residential           building or  rented land the controller may allow,           if the basic rent,           (i) in  the case  of building  in existence before           the Ist  January, 1939  or in  the case  of rented           land;           (a) does  not exceed Rs.50 per mensem, an increase           not exceeding 371/2 per cent on such basic rent;           (b) exceeds  Rs.50 per  mensem,  an  increase  not           exceeding SO per cent on such basic rent;           (ii) in case of building constructed after the Ist           January 1939:-           (a) does  not exceed Rs.50 per mensem, an increase           not exceeding 50 per cent on such basic rent;           (b) exceeds  Rs. 50  per mensem,  an increase  not           exceeding 100 per cent on such basic rent;           (6) Nothing  in this  section shall  be deemed  to           entitle the  Controller  to  fix  the  rent  of  a           building or rented land at an amount less than the           rent payable  for such  building  or  rented  land           under a  subsisting lease  entered into before the           first day of the January 1939."       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 Ist  January, 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  Article 14  and would  be an interference with the fundamental  right guaranteed  under Article 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

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 113 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.      We are  unable to  accept this  contention because each legislature in the several States has provided the method of determination of fair rent on the basis of legal conditions, as judged  to be,  by each  such legislature.  It  is  well- settled that  the legislative  wisdom of such legislation is not a  ground for  which the  validity of  the  Act  can  be challenged .      Article 14  does not  authorise the  striking down of a law of  one State  on the ground that in contrast with a law of another  State on  the same  subject its  provisions  are discriminatory or  different. Nor  does it contemplate a law of the  Centre or of the State dealing with similar subjects being  held   to  be   unconstitutional  by   a  process  of comparative study  of the  provisions of two enactments. The source of  authority for  the two  statutes being different, Article 14 can have no application.      See in  this connection  the decision  of this Court in Prabhakaran Nair  and others  v. State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and others, [1987] 4 S.C.C. 238.      Shri S.K. Bagga, learned counsel drew our attention, we must have  hasten  to  add  to  the  different  statutes  in different States  on this  aspect. We  cannot say that there was any  better provision  in  those  statutes,  there  were undoubtedly  different   provisions  and   those   different provisions were judged by the legislatures of those State to be suited  to the needs of those States. It is not necessary for us to examine in details those very provisions.      Shri  S.K.   Bagga,  learned   counsel  also  drew  out attention to  the observations  of this Court in the case of M/s Raval & Co. v. K.G. Ramachandran and others, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 818-1197412  S.C.R. 629. He drew out attention how fair rent should  be fixed by relying on the certain observations of Bhagwati,  J. as  the Chief  Justice then was at Page No. 825 of  the A.I.R.  In the  facts and in the context of this case it  is not  necessary to  refer to  these observations. These were  made entirely in a different context. It must be the function  of the legislature of each State to follow the methods considered  to be  suited for that State, that would be   no    ground   for   judging   the   arbitrariness   or unreasonableness of  a particular legislation in question by compari- 114 son. What  may be  the problem  in Madras  may  not  be  the problem inPunjab. It must however, be borne in mind that the Act in  question was  passed in  1949 and it pegged the rent prevalent in  the similar  houses in 1938 and as such is not unreasonable per se. The rises stated tremendously after the end of  the Second  World War  after the  partition  of  the country. In that view of the matter, we can not say that per se there  is unreasonableness  in fixing  the prices in 1938 level. Having  regard to the specific preamble of the Act we find nothing  unreasonable in  the Scheme contemplated under Section 4 of the present Act.      In the  aforesaid view  of the matter, the challenge to Section 4 on the grounds advanced before us must fail and it is accordingly rejected. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

N.P.V.                                     Appeal dismissed. 115