Clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947, are unconstitutional and void as they impose unreasonable restrictions on the landlord's right to hold and enjoy property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Arun K. Mukherjea J. This appeal has come to us upon a reference by a division Bench consisting of the late Chief Justice D. N. Sinha and myself who thought that this appeal is one which should be tried by a larger Bench. The reference was made under Rule I (ii) of Chapter 2, Part I of the Appellate Side Rules and the entire matter is now for determination by this Bench. The appeal arises in the following way:

2. The appellants are the owners of premises No. 104B, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) which consists of a four storeyed building which had been leased out to one Kedarlal Sil. The first, second and third floors of the building were requisitioned by the Government of West Bengal in November 1952 in exercise of the powers of requisition vested in the Government under section 3 (1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary provisions) Act. 1947 (hereinafter called "the said Act)". The lessee was offered a monthly compensation of Rs. 465/- by the Land Acquisition Collector. This was not, however, acceptable to the lessee and dispute regarding the quantum of compensation was referred to the arbitration of P. N. Lahiri, Additional District Judge, 24-parganas under the provisions of the said Act. The Arbitrator fixed the monthly compensation for the requisitioned portion of the building at Rs. 489-8-0. Thereafter, in July 1956 the lessee surrendered the lease to the petitioners. On 23 August, 1956 the appellants were served with a notice under section 4 (1) (b) of the said Act calling upon them to execute various repairs to the said premises. Particulars of the repairs are to be found in schedule (1) to the said notice and they consist of 18 items. It appears that the appellants sent their rent compensation bills to Government for the months of September 1956 to February 1957 under cover of a letter dated 10 April 1957. No payment was made in respect of these bills and on 26 April 1957 the Land Acquisition Collector wrote a letter to the appellant No. 1, Kartic Chandra De asking him to submit the rent compensation bills for the months of March and April 1957 "after showing therein a deduction of Rs.445.50P being the repair costs of the premises". The appellant Kartic Chandra De was told that no payment was possible until and unless the desired adjusted bills were received. On 15 May 1957 Kartic Chandra De for himself and as trustee to the estate of Kamala Bala Dasi replied to the Land Acquisition Collector denying that the appellants were under any obligation to make the repairs which had been demanded earlier in the notice of 23 August 1956. The appellants refused to make a deduction of the alleged costs of repairs and asked that their bills for rent compensation should be paid up at once. In the same letter, the appellants made a demand from the Land Acquisition Collector of the charges of maintenance of operation of the electric water pump installed in the premises as well as charges for the common services including occupier's share of the Municipal taxes in respect of the requisitioned premises. He also complained about non-receipt of the compensation bills from September 1956 to February 1957. The Land Acquisition Collector, however, took no notice of this letter and, on the other hand, on 17 May 1957 served upon the appellants another notice under section 4 (1)(b)of the said Act calling upon them to make certain repairs to the unfiltered water supply system of the premises. The appellants thereupon made an application before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and asked for a writ of Mandamus calling upon the respondents to cancel or rescind the two notices dated 23 August 1956 and 17 May 1957. A Rule was issued and after the affidavits had been completed the application was heard by G. K. Mitter, J. The main contention of the appellants who were the petitioners in that application was that there was no legal obligation upon t