The freezing of rent determined in 1972 for certain classes of tenants is unreasonable, unfair, and unequal, leading to discrimination between landlords and tenants, and violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made a request that the definition of "standard rent" as given in Section 3 (k) (wrongly mentioned in the petition as 2 (k)) and corresponding provisions of Sections 4 (2), 5, 6, 8 and 9 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), be declared ultra vires of the Constitution of India. It is further prayed that it may be declared that the standard rent payable for building is the prevailing market rent relating to similar buildings exempted from the operation of the Act : that it be further declared that on failure to arrive at a settlement of the standard rent, the same be determined by the District magistrate on the basis of the criterion as may be laid down in this petition. The last prayer made is that the respondent No. 1, i. e. , State of U. P. and Food and Civil Supply Department of State of U. P. be directed to take steps for the enactment of a new rent control legislation on the lines of Model Rent Control Legislation.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as follows :

"the petitioner alleges that his father Sri D. C. Jain, in the year 1947-48, constructed the shops on both the sides of Raja Ki Mandi at the crossing of M. G. Road, Agra and shops were let out to the various tenants. This area later on came to be known as Labh Chand Market. Reasonable annual rent was determined under Section 3a of U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "old Act") in accordance with the amendment made in the Act by Act no. XLIV of 1948 by which the newly constructed building also came under the purview of the old Act. "

( 3 ) IN March, 1956, the shop No. 4809-A/14 (hereinafter referred to as "disputed shop") fell vacant. It was allotted to T. C. Gupta, father of the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 under Section 7 (2) of the old Act. He started paying rent @ Rs. 34. 34p. per month. The amount also included the rent of furniture fitted in the shop by the father of the petitioner. It is further pleaded that in the year 1972, the old Act was repealed by the new legislation U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). The provisions of Section 5 of this Act permitted for the enhancement of the rent up to 25% only but T. C. Gupta did not enhance the rent at all : that the adjoining shops of Labh Chand market are fetching rent at much higher rate as shown in chart. Annexure-1 to the petition ranging from Rs. 333. 30p. per month to Rs. 6,800 per month ; that the petitioner is also required to pay house tax, water tax, etc. , and therefore, he is receiving rent of Rs. 23 per month only of the disputed shop ; that T. C. Gupta and thereafter his sons also permitted hawkers to sit in verandah in front of the disputed shop and was earning Rs. 50 per day from them.

( 4 ) THAT according to the Act, the standard rent is agreed rent or the reasonable annual rent + 25% thereof whichever is higher. The law has freezed this rent at this amount. There is no provision in the Act for any subsequent enhancement or revision of the standard rent in this category of the tenant except on the ground of reconstruction of the accommodation or increase in the taxes : that this is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary causing serious hardship to the landlords which is all the more greater in cases of the buildings constructed during fortys like the present one. The petitioner has made his prayer in the light of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Malpe vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 602, (hereinafter referred to as "malpes case" ).

( 5 ) THE petition has been opposed by State of U. P. as well as by the respondents Nos. 2 to 6. It has been alleged by them that there is no ground to declare the definition of "standard rent" as ultra vires or