JUDGMENT - DESHMUKH D.K., J.:---The petitioner No. 1 is a firm of Advocates and Solicitors whereas petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are its partners. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they seek an order from this Court striking down the provisions of section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) on the ground that it is violative of the guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They also seek an order setting aside the notice of termination of tenancy dated 17th April, 2002 issued by the respondent No. 2 as also a show cause notice dated 3rd October, 2002 issued by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioners also claim a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent No. 2 from proceeding with Case No. 3 of 2002 initiated by him against the petitioners under section 4 of the Act. The facts that are material and relevant for disposing of this petition are that the respondent No. 3 State Bank of India owns a building in Fort, Mumbai. According to the petitioners, the management of the Imperial Bank which was the predecessor of the respondent No. 3 had leased out to the petitioner No. 1 certain premises in the building of the respondent No. 3 in the year 1943. The ground floor and the second floor of the said building are occupied by the respondent No. 3 bank. The lease granted in favour of the petitioners was renewed from time to time. For the last time, it was renewed and that lease was in force till the year 1973. Though the lease has not been renewed by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner No. 1 continues to occupy the building and according to the petitioner No. 1, it is a tenant of the premises. By a notice dated 6th January, 2000, the respondent No. 3 had terminated the tenancy of the petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the respondent requires the premises to accommodate their capital market branch, personal banking branch and other branches. By a notice dated 17th April, 2002, the termination notice dated 6th January, 2000 was withdrawn. Thereafter, again by notice dated 17th April, 2002, the monthly tenancy of the petitioner No. 1 of the premises was terminated at the end of the calendar month next to the calendar month in which the notice was received by the petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 3 gave several reasons in the notice for terminating the tenancy of the petitioner No. 1. The respondent No. 2 has issued a show-cause notice under sub-section (1) and Clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act to the petitioner No. 1 to show cause why an order of eviction from the premises should not be passed against the petitioner No. 1. It is this show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 2 which is the real cause for filing the present petition. A notice was issued to the respondents pursuant to which the respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit in reply. At the request of the petitioners by an order dated 8th April, 2003, the Government of Maharashtra was directed to produce the letter addressed by the Government of Maharashtra seeking assent of the President in respect of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Accordingly, the letter was produced and inspection was given to the petitioners.

2. After an affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioners, at the hearing, sought permission to urge two more grounds, we granted the permission and heard the learned Counsel on those points also, subsequently the petitioners have been permitted to incorporate those grounds in the petition by amending the same. Accordingly, amendment has been carried out.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners firstly submits that the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Maharashtra Rent Act for the sake of brevity) prevail over the provisions of the said Act in view of Article 254(2) of the Cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document