The classification of the premises into two categories, namely, "non-residential" and "residential," was reasonable and had a rational basis.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, H. C. Sharma has challenged the vires of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Act") on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14, 19 (l) (f) and 31 of the Constitution of India. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is the owner of the premises described as Flat No. 28-E, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The petitioner had leased out the said flat to the National Insurance Company Limited for non-residential use. The National Insurance Company was nationalised and on its nationalisation, the Life Insurance Corporation of India became the tenant of the said premises under the petitioner. The petitioner requested respondent no. 1 for vacating the premises as he required the premises for his bona fide use and occupation. The demised premises are in possession of an officer of respondent no. 1 who is using it for his residence. Respondent No. 1 did not vacate the premises. The petitioner filed an application against respondent no. 1 for his eviction on the ground that respondent no. 1 had sub-let the premises. The petitioner was unsuccessful in those proceedings right up to the High Court. It was held by the High Court that respondent no. 1 had permitted its officer to occupy the premises for residential purposes asa licencee and it would not in law amount to sub-letting. In this Writ Petition the petitioner pleaded that he could not seek eviction of respondent no. 1 from the demised premises on the ground of his personal requirement as Section 14 of the Act does not provide for the recovery of possession of a non-residential building on the ground of personal need. The petitioner pleaded that the restriction placed by Section 14 on the right of the landlord to recover the premises let out for non- relidential purposes for his bona fide use and occupation is unreasonable and that such a restriction is not in the interest of general public. The petitioner further pleaded that the classification of the premises into two classes, namely, "non-residential" and "residential" is arbitrary and there is no rational basis for distinguishing the two and consequently the provisions of Section 14 the reviolative of. Article 14 and deserve to be struck down. The petitioner pleaded that a landlord who has let out the premises for non-residential purposes is precluded from recovering possession of non-residential premises on the ground of his bona fide requirem ents whereas a landlord who has let out the pre. nises for residential purposes can recover such premises for his bona fide requirement s and that the differential treatment meted out to the two categories of the landlords mentioned above is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further pleaded that the impugned provision is a permanent measure and has the effect of depriving a landlord of his right to possess and enjoy the property permanently and is, therefore, vioiative of the fundamental rights of a citizen guaranteed under Articles 19 (l) (f) and 31 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner prayed that Section 14 and clause 14 (l) (e) of the Act be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE petition was resisted by the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2 pleaded that the provisions of Section 14 of the Act are reasonable and in the interest of general public and are, therefore, not violative of Article 19 of the Constitution. The respondents further pleaded that the classification of the properties into residential and non-residential and the absence of a provision in Section 14 (l) (e) enabling a landlord to recover possession of a non-residential building for his persona) use is rational and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Respondent no. 2 pleaded that the restriction imposed by Section 14 of the A