( 1 ) AFTER the promulgation of Delhi Rentcontrol (Amendment) Act, 1988 whereby some provisions wereincorporated into the Delhi Rent Control Act, this is the second round of litigation which has come up before this Bench. In an earlier case of Shri B. M. Chanana Vs. Union of Indiaand Others; 1989 (4) Delhi Lawyer 246, (1) we had decided thevalidity of Sections 14-B, 14-C and 14-D as well as interpretedsection 14-C of the Act. The present bunch of writ petitionswhich ha? come up for hearing before us again pertains to thesame provisions.

( 2 ) THE present writ petition deals with the vires and the interpretation of Section 14-D of the Act. As there were a numberof writ petitions pending in this court and in view of the factthat a lerge number of litigants were likely to be affected wepermitted various counsels who so desired, to appear and addressarguments on all facts with regard to the interpretation and validity of the said provisions.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of appreciating various issues which areinvolved with regard to the interpretation of Section 14-D ofthe Act it is necessary to, by way of illustration, refer to the factsof the prevent writ petition.

( 4