A.V. Savant, C.J.

Heard all the learned counsel; Mr. T.R.G. Warrier for the appellants, Mr. Sasikumar, Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. Pushparaj for the 3rd respondent and Mr. N.P. Samuel, for respondent No. 4.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 3rd March, 1999 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No. 5485 of 1999. The Original Petition was filed by the appellants who are the co-owners of several shops in Thrissur town. The shops have been let out to several parties on monthly rent. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the present appeal are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the Original Petition, who are the tenants in the shops owned by the appellants. The relief prayed for in the Original Petition is for setting aside the judgments and orders Ext. P1 dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Trichur in O.S. No. 2121 of 1997 and Ext. P2 dated 30.1.1999 passed by the 1st Additional Munsiff, Thrissur in O.S. No. 2120 of 1997. Ext. PI is the judgment delivered by the trial court in a suit filed by the appellants for enhancement of rent against respondent No.3 Kavitha Foot Wear. Ext. P2 is the judgment delivered by the trial court in the suit filed by the appellants for increase in the rent against respondent No. 4 United Agencies. In both the suits an issue was framed as to whether the suit was maintainable in law. In Ext. P1 the trial court has upheld the objection raised by the defendant-respondent No.3 that the civil court did hot have jurisdiction to fix the fair rent or enhance the rent already agreed between the parties.

3. In the impugned decision of the learned single judge, a reference is made to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala, 1995 (2) KLT 848 where this Court took the view that the provisions of Ss.5, 6 and 8 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, "Rent act" ) put together were ultravires the provisions of Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the said provisions imposed arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on the right of the landlord to carry on his business within the meaning of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The combined operation of Ss.5, 6 and 8 of the Rent Act resulted in gross invasion on the right of a landlord to carry on business. The prohibition contained in S.6 of the Rent Act was also held to be an unreasonable restriction on the right to livelihood envisaged in Art.21 of the Constitution. The ban against the landlord that he shall not receive anything in excess of the fair rent even from the willing tenant (who is ready to voluntarily pay in accordance with the prevailing rate of rent in the locality) is an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business envisaged in Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Since it was held that S.5 could not stand alone without subsidiary and incidental provisions for periodical revision of the fair rent, the legislative scheme provided through Ss.5, 6 and 8 is a package and was mutually dependent. In the result, it was held that the said provisions do not stand the test of reasonableness and were, therefore, held to be ultravires the provisions of the Constitution and were declared as void.

4. It is common ground before us that there is no appeal against the said judgment and the State has accepted the judgment as final and binding. In fact in the companion Original Petition, O.P. No. 19605 of 1999 a statement dated 10th December, 1999 had been filed on behalf of the State Government on 16th December, 1999 duly signed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Housing Department, stating that in view of the aforesaid judgment in Issac Ninon's case, the Government has taken steps to amend the existing Rent Act. The amendment is expected to contain new provisions for fixing standard and fair rent and mitigate the grievances of landlords and tenants. It is further stated that "a comprehensive proposal for the amendment has to be