The State Government's power to grant exemption from the operation of the Act under Section 3(2) is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution, including the requirement of providing reasons and justification for the exemption and giving the affected parties an opportunity to be heard.

Gulab C. Gupta, J.

1. The petitioners are tenants of respondent No. 2, a Wakf registered under the Wakf Act, 1954 and feel aggrieved by the Notification dated 7-9-1989 published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra of the said date, issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 3(2) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ; and challenge the constitutional validity thereof by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. We must at the very outset regret the non-availability of any help in deciding this writ petition by the respondents. The petition was admitted as long back as on 1-8-1991 and thereafter the respondents were served notices. They were represented by Addl. Advocate General. The respondents have neither filed any return nor have appeared on the last date of hearing when the matter was fixed for final hearing. This Court was informed that since the Advocates of the High Court are boycotting this Court, the office of the Advocate General is also not able to attend the hearing. This court knows no reason why the office of the Advocate General should boycott the Court. The Office of the Advocate General has a status of its own and is under an obligation to discharge its own responsibilities also and since this court finds no valid reason for the absence and since the petitioners were present in this Court, not only on 6-9-1993 but also on 13-9-1993, the Court has proceeded to hear them and decide the matter in accordance with law.

3. The petitioners are in occupation of shops forming a part of Jama Masjid building situate at Chowk, Bhopal and owned by the respondent No. 2, a Wakf. They claimed to be old tenants and submit that earlier they were governed by the provisions of the Act and had the protection of the said law. They specifically submit that the protection of the Act extended to unjustified eviction from the tenanted shops and also exorbitant increase in the rent. The petitioners further submit that they have always been ready to pay the rent at the increased rate but the increased rent demanded from them is generally from 100% to 300%. In some case, the increase has been 20-30 times of the present rent. The details of the increase are contained in Annexure A, filed with the petition. The petitioners further submit that they have been served notices like Annexure A-l demanding increased rent and failing which are threatened with eviction. They submit that the Notification dated 7-9-1989 (Annexure B) not only illegally deprives them of the protection of the act but also subjects them to discriminatory and arbitrary treatment in the hands of respondent No. 2. The notification is, therefore, claimed to be illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. Though no return has been filed by the respondents, the respondent No. 2 has filed reply to the application for ad interim writ and has submitted that the notification having been issued in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Act which is constitutionally valid, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief from this Court. Under the circumstances, the constitutional question requiring decision of this Court is whether Section 3(2) of the Act is a constitutionally valid provision and whether the notification Annexure B has been issued in accordance with law.

5. As regards the constitutional validity of Section 3(2) of the Act, the decision is of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanhaiyalal, 1970 M.P.L.J. 973. In the said case, relying on its earlier decision in P.J. Irani v. State of Madras, AIR 1961 SC 1731, the Supreme Court held that the provision was constitutionally valid. To the same effect is the decision in S. Kandaswamy Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1985 SC 257, where the constitutional validity of a similar provision in Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was challenged and the challenge was repelled relying on the decision in Kanhaiyalal's ca