JUDGMENT

AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. :— The constitutional validity of S. 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 has been challenged in these writ petitions. This question which is common to all the writ petitions is the only question which arises for consideration and these writ petitions are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The question has been urged as a pure question of law. In that view of the matter it does not become necessary to refer the facts of any of the writ petitions.

3. Section 1(3) as originally enacted in the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brievity as the Act) was in the following terms :-

"Nothing in this Act shall apply to :-

(i) any residential building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion;

(ii) any non-residential building construction of which is completed after the 31st March, 1962

(iii) any rented land let out on or after 31st March, 1962."

4. This provision was amended by the Amending Act of 1978 (Act 16 of 1978) to read as follows :-

"(3) Nothing in this Act shall apply to any building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion."

5. It is the validity of this amended provision which has been questioned in these writ petitions.

6. The validity is challenged mainly on the following grounds :-

(1) The provision is arbitrary and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

(2) In any event in so far as this provision operates retrospectively and seeks to take away the vested rights of the petitioner under the Act, prior to this amendment, the same must be held to be illegal and invalid.

7. The argument is that this provision seeks to make an invidious distinction between building constructed before the commencement of this Act and buildings the construction of which was completed on or after the commencement of this Act and on the basis of this invidious distinction this provision discriminates between the landlord and tenant of building constructed before and after the commencement of the Act, a landlord enjoys in case of the buildings constructions of which is completed on or after the commencement of the Act an exemption from the operation of the Act and the tenant in respect of such building is denied the protection and the benefits of the Act for a period of 10 years from the date of completion of the construction of the building, whereas the landlord of any building constructed before the commencement of the Act does not enjoy any such exemption and the tenant of such building enjoys the protection and all the benefits of the Act. It is submitted that this discrimination between one class of landlords and their tenants on the basis of the time of completion of the buildings is clearly arbitrary and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The submission is that Rent Control Legislation is enacted for the purpose of affording protection to the tenants and the Act in question has also been passed for achieving the same object. Reference in this connection is made to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the passing of the Act and to the Preamble of the Act. It is contended that this classification of buildings on the basis of the time of completion of construction has no reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved and may on the contrary frustrate the purpose for which the Act has been passed inasmuch as in respect of the buildings the construction of which was completed on or after the commencement of the Act, the tenants are denied the entire benefit and protection of the Act. It is further contended that there can be no rational basis in fixing the period of the completion of the building with reference to the date of commencement of the Act which received the assent of the Governor on the 25th o