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 of Sub Section (2) of Section 6 of the Act.

(5). Shri D.S. Shishodia, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1193/1997 submitted that similar provisions in different Rent Control Acts of different States are struck down as ultra vires the Constitution. He cited the following decisions in support of his case:-

``(1) Firm Khetsi Dass Sheoji Ram, Sardarshahar and others vs. Mohani Devi and another (2).

(2) Issac Ninan vs. State of Kerala (3).

(6). He further submitted that the controversy raised in the writ petition can be taken as concluded by the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another (4).

(7). The learned Advocate General for the respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition did not dispute the legal position in regard to Section 6(2) of the Act. The learned Advocate General only added that the State is interested and keen to bring a suitable legislation in this regard on the basis of the model law. May be it may bring such legislation within about six months.

(8). Since the constitutional validity of Sub Section (2) of Section 6 of the Act is questioned in these cases, we think it appropriate to extract the said provisions. Sub Section (2) of Section 6 of the Act reads:

``6. Fixation of standard rent-

(1) ......................

(2) The Court shall, after holding such summary inquiry as it may consider just and necessary, determine the standard rent for such premises and shall, in doing so, act according to the following principles, namely-

(a) Where the premises are let for residential purpose or for the pur- poses of the public hospital, aushadhalaya or dawakhana, a recognized educational institution, a public library or reading room or any orphange the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent increased by fifty per cent thereof; and

(b) Where the premises are let for any other purposes, the standard rent shall not exceed two and a half time the basic rent thereof:

Provided that where the premises have been (first) let after the first day of January, (1965) the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent thereof:

Provided further that where the fair rent or standard rent for any premises has been determined or redetermined (by any Court under this Act or) by any authority under any law or order repealed by Section 30 before the commencement of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 and the amount of such fair rent or standard rent is the same as would be determinable as standard rent by the Court under this Section, the fair rent or standard rent previously determined or redetermined, shall not be disturbed.

Explanation – For the purposes of this S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document