J.P.Joshi and Ashok Chhangani, for Interveners;

Honble THANVI, J.–Two ancient maxims viz; (1) Judicis est jus dicere non dare: The judges duty is to declare law and not to make it and (2) Talis interpretatio semper fienda est, ut evitetur absurdum et inconveniens, et ne judicium sit illusorium: That interpretation must be chosen which avoids an absurdity or inconvenience and which does not make a decision of Court illusory, are coupled with the controversy involved in the present seventeen writ petitions, whereby the Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, hereinafter referred-to as "the New Act" in toto and Section 32(3)(a) of this New Act and Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, later styled as "the Old Act", have been challenged by declaring them as ultravires to the Constitution of India. Though different reliefs have been sought in these petitions but broadly, they are of three categories.

(2). The relief sought in the first set of petitions is to declare the New Act as ultravires to the Constitution of India; in the second set, relief prayed-for is to declare Section 32(3)(a) of the New Act as ultravires to the Con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document