The legislation must strike a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) and social control provided in Article 19(6), and the provisions must be reasonable, just, and fair.

Radhakrishnan. J.

A question of general public importance involving the constitutional validity of Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter called the 'Act', has been posed before us. When this Original Petition came up before a learned single judge, it has been referred to a larger Bench on account of the general importance of the question. Petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act.

2. Section 5 of the Act deals with determination of fair rent for a building leased to a tenant either for residential or non-residential purpose. Section 6 has imposed a ban against further increase of the rent from what has been fixed by the court as fair rent except in one contingency where some additions or improvements or alternations are made by the landlord to the building. Section 8 has imposed a restriction on the landlord from claiming or receiving or even stipulating for payment of rent in excess of the fair rent.

3. Petitioner contends that the three provisions together would affect his livelihood as he is depending on the income from the rent of the building let out to different tenants and are hence offensive to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further contends that the above provisions are unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary and hence they offend Article 14 of the Constitution. Alternatively, petitioner contends that the above provisions put together amount to unreasonable restriction on his right to carry on the business in renting out buildings and hence they offend Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

4. Mindful of the fact that on earlier occasions constitutional validity of the above provisions has been challenged unsuccessfully, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that changed circumstances are of considerable importance in testing the vires of the impugned provisions albeit the survival of those provisions in conditions prevailing at the time of their enactment (vide Motor General Traders v. State of A.P. -AIR 1984 S.C.121.)

5. Senior counsel or the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 S.C.C. 545) and contended that right to live under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood also. According to the senior counsel, Article 19(1)(g) extends to the carrying on any business which included the business in owning and leasing out landings for commercial and non-commercial purposes. According to the counsel, construction of buildings and letting them out to tenants to earn income out of that will come within the term 'business' and is hence a right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He elaborated that the limitation imposed on a person on enjoyment of such right should not be arbitrary or of excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of public. The restriction which arbitrarily and excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness, unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) and social control provided in Article 19(6). He also argued that the restriction imposed under Section 5 stating that the fair rent can be fixed taking into consideration the condition prevailing at the time of letting and further the stipulation for taking into consideration the property tax or house tax fixed by the

local authority as the basis is illegal, unreasonable and violative of Article 19(1)(g).

6. On our request, learned Additional Advocate General Shri V.K. Beeran appeared for the respondent - State. He submits that the rent control legislation being a social legislation, its object is to protect the weaker sections of tenants from unreasonable eviction and unfair rent. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Act held the field for nearly 30 years and therefore the various provisions of the Act regarding fixation of fair rent cannot