RADHAKRISHNAN S., J.:—By this petition, the petitioner challenges the revision in rent by respondent No. 1 Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in respect of Flat No. 1, Queens Court, 136, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai 400 020 ("the said flat") rented out to the petitioner to be illegal, arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner has been residing in the said flat since 1961 and has been a tenant of LIC in respect of the said flat ever since February, 1974 when the tenancy of the said flat was transferred by LIC in the name of the petitioner. The petitioners family have been tenants of the said flat from about 1938, i.e. just after the said building was constructed in 1937, and even prior to the building being acquired in 1946 by the New India Assurance Company Limited.

2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Chagla, appearing for the petitioner pointed out that in February, 1974 the total rent in respect of the said flat was Rs. 189.73 per month (Basic Rent Rs. 148.12 + Municipal Taxes Rs. 41.61). With effect from 1st September, 1997 respondent LIC had unilaterally increased the rent to a total of Rs. 2592/- per month (Basic Rent Rs. 2303/- + Municipal Taxes Rs. 188 + Miscellaneous charges Rs. 101/-). Again in February, 2003 LIC has sought to revise this rent to Rs. 59,984/- per month (Basic Rent Rs. 59,680/- + Municipal Taxes Rs. 203/- (subject to revision) + Miscellaneous charges Rs. 101/-) i.e. an increase of 2591.04%. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Municipal Taxes of Rs. 203, when revised, are likely to be in the vicinity of about Rs. 60,000/- in view of high revision in the basic rent. This will bring the total monthly outgoing of the petitioner to about Rs. 1,20,000/-.

3. Mr. Chagla, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the petitioner and her husband (who are retired senior citizens and whose joint monthly income from all sources is around Rs. 40,000/- per month) will be rendered homeless if the purported rent increase is allowed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rent revision is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable and violative of the petitioners fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The purported rent revision is also challenged on the ground that LIC has attempted a pick and choose approach and has demanded increased rent only from selected tenants, there has been no application of mind in fixation of the revised rent, LIC has treated equals unequally as also treated unequals equally and by that process has created a hostile discrimination affecting the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also strongly submitted that the aforesaid rent revision to be violative of the mandatory guidelines dated 30th May, 2002 issued by respondent No. 2 Union of India.

5. The petitioner and her husband are both senior citizens (67 and 70 years of age, respectively). The petitioner had retired as a part time lecturer in Nirmala Niketan College of Social Work in 1995. She receives a monthly pension of Rs. 292/- per month. The petitioners husband retired from Air India as Deputy Manager, Cabin Services, In-flight in 1991. He does not receive any pension. The joint aggregate income of the petitioner and her husband from all sources is about Rs. 40,000/- per month. The petitioner has no other property or home apart from the said flat.

6. There is also no dispute that LIC does not maintain either the building or the said flat and has not repaired the same for the last several years. The tenants repair their respective flats at their own expenses. For carrying out of repairs at their own costs, the tenants are required to pay Rs. 10,000/- to LIC as a non refundable deposit as a pre-condition to carry out repairs. About two years ago MHADA undertook some repairs on the said building, on repeated representations of the tenants.

7. It appears that between February 1974 and August, 1997 the aggregate rent in respect