Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Back ground:

1. At the outset, it may be observed that CWP No. 297 of 2001 has been rendered infructuous in view of the relief claimed therein being incorporated in the amendment carried out in Section 14(3)(a) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 vide Amendment Act No. 8 of 2012, whereby the rights of the landlord for seeking eviction of tenants on the ground of bonafide requirement have been made applicable to both residential and also non-residential building and is therefore dismissed as such.

2. Whereas, in CWP No. 2072 of 1995 and CWP No. 3165 of 2013, the petitioners/landlords have challenged the provisions of Sections 2(j), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 30 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short Amended Act) (as amended by the Amendment Act No. 8 of 2012) as being un-constitutional, invalid and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and have sought a writ of mandamus for quashing these provisions and striking them down and further directing respondents No. 1 and 2 not to give effect to or to enforce the above mentioned provisions. It is lastly prayed that the tenants may be directed to pay use and occupation charges/mesne profit at the market rate to the petitioners from the period during which they remained in illegal occupation of the premises.

3. Since common question of law arises in these writ petitions, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

4. With the consent of the parties, CWP No. 3165 of 2013 is taken as a lead case.

Facts:

5. The petitioner has averred that he is a co-owner of various properties in Shimla Town and elsewhere which he has inherited from his ancestors. These prime properties are situated in the best localities of the Town, but are occupied by the tenants inducted by his predecessor-in-interest. However, with the passage of time a number of tenants have left Shimla, but have not handed over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises and have rather locked the same. The rent of these premises and buildings which have been constructed before the year 1970 are extremely low and for this reason the tenants do not vacate the premises even though they do not require the same any more. In some cases the tenants do not even pay the rent or have sublet the premises without the written permission of the petitioner and at the same time are receiving rents at the market rate from the sublettees. Due to this, it is not possible for the petitioner to even maintain these properties and most of them are now in dilapidated condition and require extensive repairs. However, neither it is economical to carry out its repairs nor is it possible to effect such repairs without the tenanted premises being vacated. As a result, the petitioner has virtually been deprived of his properties by the tenants and this has been made possible by the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 and thereafter by the provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, as amended by Act No. 8 of 2012. The petitioner claims that his right under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India have been abridged by the provisions of Sections 2(j), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 30 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and therefore, these provisions be struck down as being unconstitutional or invalid.

Grounds on which Act can be challenged:

6. Earlier, an enacted law could be declared unconstitutional on very limited grounds, like legislative competence, violation of Part-III of the Constitution and reasonableness of the law. However, with the passage of time, the law developed and even the grounds for unconstitutionality also widened.

7. In Namit Sharma vs. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 745, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the grounds as mentioned by D.D. Basu in Shorter Constitution of India (14th Edn., 2009) on which the law could be invalidated or could not be invalidated and the same r