Judgement

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dt. 3rd Mar., 1986, dismissing the Writ Petition in limine under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the appellant before the High Court. The appellant states that he is the owner of certain premises in Punjab. It must, however, be mentioned that the petition is lacking in particulars as to what premises the appellant owned and in respect of which premises the appellant is making the grievances. On this ground it is not possible to decide the question of vires canvassed before the High Court and repeated before us. A petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions must be in the context of certain facts and not in abstract or vacuum. The essential facts necessary to examine the validity of the Act are lacking in this appeal. On this ground the petition was rightly rejected and we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court on this ground alone. Be that as it may as the question of vires of S. 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter called the Act, was challenged before the High Court and canvassed before us. It is just as well that we did with that connection.

2. Shri S. K. Bagga, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that S. 4 of the said Act is ultra vires the Constitution and unreasonable inasmuch as the section provides that rent prevalent in 1938 the basis for the determination of fair rent if unreasonable and unjust. He urged that pegging the rent prevalent in 1938 the basic rent was inequitable and unjust in the, background of the tremendous rise in prices. But it has to be borne in mind that certain increases have been provided for in S. 4 from the rent prevalent in 1938. It must, however, be remembered that the Act was passed as the preamble of the said Act which states, inter alia, "to restrict the increase of rent". One of the objects of the Act was to restrict the increase in rent. With that object the Act, has provided certain provisions as to fixation of the fair rent. Section 4 of the Act which is under challenge may be conveniently set out as under :-

"Section 4. "Determination of fair rent : (1) The Controller shall on application by the tenant or landlord of a building or rented land fix the fair rent for such building or rented land after holding such enquiry as the Controller thinks fit.

(2) In determining the fair rent under this section, the Controller shall first fix a basic rent taking into consideration :-

(a) The prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances during the twelve monts prior to 1st Jan., 1939; and

(b) the rental value of such building or rented land if entered in property tax assessment register of the municipal, town or notified area committee, cantonment board, as the case may be relating to the period mentioned in Cl. (a);

Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-ss. (3), (4) and (5) the fair rent for any building in the Urban area of Simla shall not exceed the basic rent.

(3) In fixing the fair rent of a residential building the Controller may allow, if the basic rent -

(i) in the case of a building in existence before the 1st Jan., 1939-

(a) does not exceed Rs. 25/- per mensem an increase not exceeding 8 1/2 per cent on basic rent;

(b) exceeds Rs. 25/- per mensem, an increase but does not exceed Rs. 50/- per mensem, an increase not exceeding 121/2 per cent on such basic rent;

(c) exceeds Rs. 50/- per mensem an increase not exceeding 25 per cent on such basic rent;

(ii) in the case of building constructed on or after the 1st Jan., 1939-

(a) does not exceed Rs. 25/- per mensem, i an increase not exceeding 25 per cent on such basic rent;

(b) exceeds Rs. 25/- but does not exceed Rs. 50/- per mensem, an increase not exceeding 371/2 per cent on such basic rent;

(c) exceeds Rs. 50/- per mensem, an incre