9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 months prior to 1st January, 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 clause (a); Provided that, not with standing anything contained in sub sections (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncrease not exceeding 30 percent on such basic rent; (b) exceeds ₹ 25 but does not exceed ₹ 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 42 per cent on such basic rent; (c)exceeds ₹ 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 55 per cent on such basic rent; 112 (5) In fixing fair rent of a non-residential building or rented land the controller may allow, if the basic rent, (i) in the case of building in existence before the Ist January, 1939 or in the case of rented land; (a) does not exceed ₹ 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding 371/2 per cent on such basic rent; (b) exceeds ₹ 50 per mensem, an increase not exceeding SO per cent on such basic rent; (ii) in case of build ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the Rent Act in Assam, Tripura and Haryana where the provisions of fixation of rent according to him were different and were more fair and just and reasonable in comparison and submitted that this provision of the Act in question was unfair and unjust. We are unable to accept this contention because each legislature in the several States has provided the method of determination of fair rent on the basis of legal conditions, as judged to be, by each such legislature. It is wellsettled that the legislative wisdom of such legislation is not a ground for which the validity of the Act can be challenged . Article 14 does not authorise the striking down of a law of one State on the ground that in contrast with a law of another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egislature of each State to follow the methods considered to be suited for that State, that would be no ground for judging the arbitrariness or unreasonableness of a particular legislation in question by comparson. What may be the problem in Madras may not be the problem inPunjab. It must however, be borne in mind that the Act in question was passed in 1949 and it pegged the rent prevalent in the similar houses in 1938 and as such is not unreasonable per se. The rises stated tremendously after the end of the Second World War after the partition of the country. In that view of the matter, we can not say that per se there is unreasonableness in fixing the prices in 1938 level. Having regard to the specific preamble of the Act we find nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
