JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---Following the ratio in the case of (Motor General Traders and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh)1, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 121 a Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Prabhakar Tanbaji Rokde v. State of Maharashtra)2, A.I.R. 1986 Bombay 64 had declared as unconstitutional the notification dated 6th February, 1952 issued under Clause 30 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ("The HRC Order") by which houses used for residential purposes constructed on a site lying vacant on 1st January, 1951 or on a site made vacant on or after that date by demolition of such structure standing on such site, were exempted from the operation of the HRC order on the ground that indefinite continuation of exemption to such houses was arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Point is whether the ratio of those decisions can be extended also to indefinite continuation of outer limits in the matter of fixation of fair rent with relation to cut off date 1st April, 1940 mentioned in Clauses 6(1) and 7(1) of the HRC order.

2. We will first notice the principles laid down in the case of Motor General Traders (supra) and its back ground. Section 32(b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (15 of 1960), exempted from the provisions of the said Act any building constructed after 26-8-1957. Point arose as to whether there was any valid justification for continuation of that exemption for years together despite changed conditions. Accepting that when the Act was brought into force in 1960 exemption to houses constructed 3 years before was valid. It is held :

"What may be unobjectionable as a transitional of temporary measure at an initial stage can still become discriminatory and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution if it is persisted in over a long period that has elapsed after the passing of the Act itself serves as a crucial factor in deciding the question whether the impugned law has become discriminatory or not because the ground on which the classification of buildings into two categories is made is not a historical or geographical one but is an economic one..................After giving our anxious consideration to the learned arguments addressed before us, we are of the view that Clause (b) of section 32 of the Act should be declared as violative of Article 14 the Constitution because the continuance of that provision on the statute book will imply the creation of a privileged class of landlords without any rational basis as the incentive to build which provided a nexus for a reasonable classification of such class of landlords no longer exists by lapse of time in the case of the majority of such landlords. There is no reason why after all these years they should not be brought at par with other landlord who are subject to the restrictions imposed by the Act in the matter of eviction of tenants and control of rents." (Paras 16, 23 30)

The passage in para 30 has been quoted with approval in the recent case of (Mohinderkumar v. State of Haryana)3, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 244.

3. In the case of Prabhakar Rokde (supra) short legislative history of the C.P. Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 (the Act) under which the HRC order is made, has been noticed. It is stated :

"To appreciate this point, it would be necessary first to trace in short the background of this legislation. The following Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Bill, 1946 (Bill No. 7 of 1946) prepared on 15th August, 1946 and which emerged as the Act speaks for itself : The influx of a large population to towns as a result of war conditions necessitated the promulgation of the Central Provinces and Berar House Rent Control Order, 1942, under the Defence of India Rules. The Defence of India Rules, will lapse at the end of September 1946. The abnormal conditions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document