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 Constitution of India and the third set of petitions is about the relief as to declaring Section 6 of the Old Act as ultravires to the Constitution of India vis-a-vis to recall or refer for reconsideration to a larger bench, the judgment passed by this Court on 30.9.1999 in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1193/1997 "Khem Chand vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1999(2) WLC (Raj) p.228 = RLW 1999(2) Raj. 908), whereby Section 6 (2) of the Old Act has been declared as ultravires to the Constitution of India.

(3). We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length including the learned Additional Advocate General and categorically scrutinized the case law cited. For the sake of convenience, first we take the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners challenging the validity of the entire New Act with regard to legislative competency and being ultravires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The controversy whether the relation of landlord and tenant pertaining to the house and building is to be included under the Entry XVIII of State List in Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India or not by virtue of conflicting opinions of various High Courts, has been set at rest by later decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Marketing Limited vs. Punjab National Bank reported in AIR 1991 SC 885, -whereby the legislation relating to the relationship of landlord and tenant including the rent control will now fall under Entry VI of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and the State legislature is competent to enact the law on this subject under Clause (2) of Article 246 of the Constitution of India and being a subject of concurrent list, it has also received the assent of the President of India on 25.2.2003. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Bill lacks legislative competence, is devoid of force.

(4). Regarding the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to Constitutional validity of the New Act, it has been argued that the provisions of the New Act violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it fails to provide equal protection of laws to the same category of tenants. In this regard, Mr.M.R.Singhvi, learned counsel has drawn our attention to various provisions of the Old Act and the New Act, especially with regard to applicability of the Act in a particular area or class, fixation of Rent, grounds for Eviction, Constitution of separate Rent Control Tribunals, Repeal & Saving Clauses, etc. The Old Act of 1950 has been repealed in the year 2001 after a lapse of more than 50 years and its objects and reasons were broadly as follows:

"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. 17 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document