( 1 ) THE above cases have been heard by us on the preliminary points involving consideration of the vires of Section 4, read with Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1969 whereby new sub Section 3a was inserted in Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, with retrospective effect so as to apply to pending proceedings.

( 2 ) THE constitutional validity of the above sub-section 3a has been challenged before us on the ground that it offends Articles 14 and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. It has been contended further that, even if the said provision be not ultra vires in itself, it will be ultra vires under the said articles, when read with Section 13, as Section 13 of the Amending Act makes provisions of sub-section (3a) (Section 4 of the Amending Act) restrospective and applicable to pending suits and appeals.

( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the landlords that the impugned sub-Section is ultra vires under Article 14 of the Constitution as classification of landlords into owner-landlords and transferee-landlords is arbitrary and not a rational classification and has no nexus to the object, sought to be achieved by the amendment in question.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the contention, it would be convenient to advert to the amended provisions of Section 13 of the Act. In the original Section 13 of the Act, under sub-Section 1 (f), reasonable requirement for building and re-building was coupled with reasonable requirement of landlords own occupation. By the present amendment the said sub-Section has been split up into two parts: - (f) subject to the provisions of sub-section (3a) and Section 18a, where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for purposes of building or rebuilding or for making thereto substantial additions or alterations, and such building or rebuilding, or additions or alterations, cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated; (ff) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3a) where the premises are reasonably required by the landlord for his own occupation if he is the owner or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person is not in possession of any reasonably suitable accommodation. Sub-section (3a) of the Act reads as follows: (3a) : ?where a landlord has acquired his interest in the premises by transfer, no suit for the recovery of possession of the premises on any of the grounds mentioned in clause (f) or clause (ff) of sub-section (1) shall be instituted by the landlord before the expiration of a period of three years from the date of his acquisition of such interest. Provided that a suit for the recovery of possession of the premises may be instituted on the ground mentioned in clause (f) of sub-section (1) before the expiration of the said period of three years if the Controller on the application of the landlord and after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard, permits, by order the institution of the suit on the ground that the building or re-building, or the additions or alteration, as the case may be, are necessary to make the premises safe for human habitation. ?

( 5 ) THE legislature is empowered to make laws on a wide range of subjects. Obviously, it has the power to make a particular law to attain a particular object and to achieve such purpose it can classify the persons to be brought under the provisions of such law, provided the basis of such classification has a just and reasonable relation to the object, which the legislature has in view. When a law is challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is necessary, in the first place to ascertain the policy, underlying the Statute, and the object, intended to be achieved by it. Having ascertained the policy and object of the Act, the Court has to apply a dual test in examining its validity: - (1) Whether the classification is rational and based upon intelligible differentia, which disting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document