JUDGMENT

PARIPOORNAN, J.:- In this batch of cases a common question arises for consideration. The petitioners in the different petitions are the legal heirs of "statutory tenants" of residential premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Act 59 of 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). They assail Section 2 sub-section (1), Cl. (iii) of the Act, as introduced by Act 18 of 1976 with retrospective effect as ultra vires and violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are ( Union of India, The Delhi Administration and the landlords of the respective premises.

2. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1089 of 1987 is the main case. We will state a few facts of this case in order to understand the scope of the controversy raised in this batch of petitions. There are 6 petitioners in the writ petitions. The petitioners father obtained the rental of the residential premises bearing Municipal No. 1331, First Floor, Baidwana Maliwara, Delhi 6, on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/- some time in the year 1940. The father died on 17-11-1969. Thereafter, the third respondent herein, the owner of the premises filed a suit for possession of the premises against the petitioners and their mother, Suit No. 116/1970. It was alleged that the tenancy was terminated by notice dated 28-7-1969. which expired on 3-9-1969. He claimed that since the statutory tenancy was not heritable, he was entitled to a decree for possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 11-2-1974. It held that the statutory tenancy was not heritable. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the Additional District Judge was futile. The petitioners have filed Second Appeal No. 135 of 1975 in the Delhi High Court and it is still pending. It is the plea of the petitioners that they being the heirs of the statutory tenant are entitled to the protection of the Act. According to the petitioners the provisions of the Act do not make any distinction between the contractual tenant and a statutory tenant and both are treated alike. The rule of heritability extends to statutory tenancy also. The decisions of this Court in Damadilal v. Parashram, (1976) 4 SCC 855, and Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 683, have held that the rule of heritability extends to statutory tenancy, whether it is residential or commercial, and the same rule will apply in other States where there is no explicit provision to the contrary. This was held to be the position in law under Section 2(1) of the Act, even before its amendment of the said provision by the introduction of sub-clause(iii). The new sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(1) is not inconsistent with the earlier position and all that sub-clause (iii) to Section 2(1) has done is to restrict the rights in so far as residential premises are concerned. Since the incidents of a contractual tenancy and a statutory tenancy are the same regarding the heritability, the ( new) provisions of Section 2(1)(iii) of the Act which seeks to limit or abridge the rights of the heirs in so far as the residential premises are concerned are discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that Section 2(1)(iii) of the Act, in so far as it limits or restricts the right of the heirs of residential premises in the manner and to the extent provided in the said section is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.

In Writ Petition No. 575 of 1988, the petitioner claims to be the heir of one Sri Chhunnu Lal, a statutory tenant under the Act, in respect of the premises 42-B, Connaught Place, New Delhi under respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who have filed a suit for possession. The suit is pending. The petitioner attacks Section 2(1)(iii) of the Act as ultra vires and discriminatory.

In S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16911 of 1991 the petitioner claims to be the heir of one Shri A.K. Roy, a statutory tenant in respect of Flat 3A, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi along with garage No. 1K and servant quarter No. 25-C/IIIrd Floor. Respond