P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) IN this batch of petitions, since common questions of law have been raised, these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 22740/96, 26483 to 26484/96, 27734 to 27741/96, 28843/96, 2960/97, 15299/97 and 16470/96 have called in question the Constitutional validity of section 2 (7) (bb) (iii) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"), and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22740/ 96 has called in question the Constitutional validity of Section 2 (7) of the Act. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ petition No. 22740/96 at the hearing of these petitions, limited his argument only to the constitutional validity of Section 2 (7) (bb) (iii) and (iv) and the Explanation given to the said provision.

( 3 ) THE petitioners, in these petitions, are the tenants in respect of either residential or non-residential premises taken on lease by them from their landlords. It is their common grievance that in view of- the amendment made to Section 2 (7) (bb) (iii) and (iv) of the Act by means of Act No. 32/1994 taking over the protection given under the Act to the tenants of the premises belonging to a Muzrai or a Religious or Charitable Institution or a wakf, such tenants are left to the mercy and arbitrary decision of their landlords either in the matter of eviction from the premises occupied by them or in the matter of enhancement of rent. In substance, it is their grievance that the provisions contained in Section 2 (7) (iii) and (iv) and Explanation given to the said provision as amended, are liable to be declared as unconstitutional as being violative of the rights guaranteed to them under Article 14 of the constitution of India. In some of the petitions, it is averred that the landlords have already instituted proceedings before the Civil Court seeking decree for possession and mesne profits since the protection given to them under the Act, has been taken away in view of the provisions impugned in these petitions.

( 4 ) THE State has filed its Statement of Objections and resisted the challenge made by the petitioners to the Constitutional validity of Section 2 (7) (bb) (iii) and (iv) and the Explanation given to the said provision under the Act.

( 5 ) SRI U. L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing along with Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty and shivaram Bhat in Writ Petitions Nos. 26483 and 26484/96, 27734 to 27741/96 and 28843/96, Sri s. P. Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 22740/96, Sri Chaitanya hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15299/97, and Sri Sampat Anand shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 2960/97 and 16470/97, strenuously submitted that Section 2 (7) (bb) (iii) (iv) and the Explanation given to the said provisions, of the Act are totally illegal and void in law as they seriously violate the right to equality guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Elaborating this submission, they would contend that the tenants in respect of residential and non-residential buildings in respect of which the provisions of the Act were earlier made applicable, belong to the same category; however, as per the provisions impugned in these petitions, such of those tenants, who are similarly situated like other tenants, but who are in occupation of the buildings belonging to Muzrai, Religious or Charitable Institutions or Wakfs, are exempted from the protection given under the Act. This, the learned Counsel would submit, is highly discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable in nature. They submitted that the Act has been made with a view to provide for the control of rents and evictions, for the leasing of buildings, to control rates of hotels and lodging houses in the State of Karnataka; that being the object of the legislation, there cannot be any justification or bas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document