( 1 ) THIS is a petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash clause (b) of the notification in G. O. Ms. No. 636, General Administration (Accommodation-A), dated 29-12-1983 and declare that the said clause is constitutionally invalid.

( 2 ) THE essential averments in the affidavit in support of the petition may be stated. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises called haridwar Hotel since 1970. The rent stipulated originally was Rs. 575/- permonth including the mulgis and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,550/ per month by 1979 and again by 1982 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2,500/- per month. The premises were constructed in the year 1969. The actual rateable value per year as entered in the municipal records is Rs. 4,800/- in the year 1983. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court striking down Section 32 (b) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, the premises under the occupation of the petitioner is governed by the Rent Control Act. But however in view of clause (b) of g. O. Ms. No. 636, date 29-12-1983, the provisions of the Rent Control Act apply (sic) to the building. The landlord filed a suit O. S. No, 104/84 on file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. G. O. Ms. No. 636, date 29-12-1983 is issued under Section 26 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act as a consequence of striking down section 32 (b) of the Act as un-constitutional by the Supreme Court. Clause (b) exempts the buildings, the monthly rent of which exceeds rs. 1,000/- from the operation of the provisions of the Act. Clause (b) does not state the time at which or the date from which the amount of rs. 1,000/- should be applied. The classification of the buildings on the basis of rental value is unreasonable and all tenants irrespective of the quantum of rent require protection under the Act. The notification is contrary to the object of the Act. Clause (b) of the notification is vague, discriminatory and arbitrary.

( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, it it stated that the notification was issued by the Government under Section 26 of the Act as a result of striking down Section 32 (b) of the Act by the the Supreme Court. It is considered that protection to tenants beloning to middle class is necessary and as such the buildings with a rent above rs. 1,000/- per month have been excluded from the provisions of the Act. In the present day social conditions, protection is required only to the tenants who are poor and downtrodden keeping in view of the conditions in the city and main municipalities. The notification is not vague and does not defeat the object of the Act.

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, it is stated that buildings which ware fetching more than rs. 1,000/- per month rent were totally excluded from the provisions of the Act and there is enough guidance in the preamble and operative provisions of the Act to exempt any building or class or buildings from all or any provisions of the Act. It is not open to the petitioner to compel the Government to extend the protection to all the tenants irrespective of the quantum of rent. The rent that is agreed to between the parties prior to the issue of the G. O. was Rs. 2,500/- per month and, therefore, the question of landlord s unilaterally increasing the rent to over Rs. 1,000/- and taking the building out of the purview of the Act does not arise. Prior to the issue of notification also, the building was not within the purview of the Act, as the said building was constructed subsequent to the date specified in Section 32 of the Act. The classification made by the State Government is not hit by Article 14 of the constitution and the decision to exempt the building with a monthly rent of more than Rs, 1,000/- is neither arbitrary nor illegal.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Challa Sitaramayya contended that clause (b) of G.