Honble PATIL, CJ.–Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2). In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1193/1997, the petitioner has questioned the validity of Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short `the Act) and has sought for quashing the said provisions as unconstitutional and void. He has further sought permission to increase the rent as per the prevailing market rate and any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit.

(3). In S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 986/96, the following points are referred to the Larger Bench for decision:-

(1) Whether a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction can declare provision of an enactment to be ultra vires the Constitution?

(2) Whether the provisions of Sub Section 2 of Section 6 of the Act can be taken to have been impliedly declared ultra vires as necessary effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Malpe Vishwanath Ach- arya vs. State of Maharashtra (1). and other cases cited by the learned Single Judge in Firm Khetsi Das Sheoji Rams case?

(4). Thus, in substance, the principal question that arises for consideration is as to the constitutional validity

Click Here to Read the rest of this document