A law that creates an arbitrary classification between similarly situated individuals or groups and imposes unreasonable restrictions on fundamental rights is unconstitutional.

( 1 ) THESE are six applications made under Article 228 of the Constitution. They raise the question of the vires of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as amended by Section 4 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, (Act XXXIV of 1969 ).

( 2 ) THE two points raised in these applications relate to substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution viz. , (1) Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, (Ad XXXIV of 1969) is discriminatory and as such ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and (2) that Section 13 of the said Amending Act imposes unreasonable restrictions upon the petitioners' fundamental rights to acquire, hold and. dispose of property guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, and as such void under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution. These two points are undoubtedly substantial questions of flaw as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

( 3 ) ARTICLE 228 of the Constitution reads as follows: If the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a Court subordinate to it involves a substantial question of law as to the Interpretation of this Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, it shall withdraw the case and may - (a) either dispose of the case itself, or (b) determine the said question of law and return the case to the Court from which the case has been so withdrawn together with a copy of its judgment on such question, and the said Court shall on receipt thereof proceed to dispose of the case in conformity with such judgment. "

( 4 ) UNDER this Article all these six petitions have been made. The requirement of Article 228 of the Constitution is first that the High Court must be satisfied that a case is pending in a Court subordinate to it and secondly it involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and thirdly, that the determination of such points of law is necessary for the disposal of the case.

( 5 ) THESE cases or suits are pending in the City Civil Court. They are suits for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and for the purpose of building and re-building. The actual point of the vires of the amendment did not arise on the pleadings in these suits for the simple reason that the amendment came into operation only on the 14th November, 1969 subsequent to these suits which were filed in August-September, 1967 and December 1968 ana which were pending in the City Civil Court while the amendment came into force. There are eight Ejectment Suits by the petitioners igainst respective tenants. They are Ejectment Suits 1297 of 1967, 1298 of 1967 and 1315 of 1967 -- all filed on the 7th August, 1967; Ejectment Suit No. 1316 of 1967 filed on 9th August, 1967; and three Ejectment Suits 1491 of 1967, 1492 of 1967 and 1493 of 1967 -- all filed on the 14th September, 1967 and the last Ejectment Suit No. 1554 of 1968 filed on 2nd December, 1968.

( 6 ) WHAT happened thereafter was that 20th December, 1969 was the date fixed for hearing of the application under Sec-tion 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 in Ejectment Suits, 1491 and 1492 of 1967 against the tenant who made an application for dismissal of the suits on the ground that these two suits were liable to be dismissed because of the provisions of Section 13 of the West Bengal Act as amended. The learned trial Judge was pleased to uphold the contentions of the tenants and dismissed the said two suits. This happened on the 20th December, 1969. But on the I9th December, 1969 applications had already been made by other tenants in the six other suits for dismissal of those suits, when an application by the petitioners, the plaintiffs in the suits, was made for adjournment of the hearing of those applications of the tenants to provide the present petitioners, the plaintiffs, to move this Court under Article 228 of the Constitu