Rent Control Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-Sections 5(10)(B), 11(1), 12(3) Standard Rent Fixation of-Restriction on the right of the landlords to increase rent by freezing rent as on 1st September 1940 or at the time of the first letting Validity of Held to be unreasonable, as rapid increase in the expenses for repair and other outgoings and the decreasing net amount of rent remaining with the landlord, with the passage of time, is leading to arbitrary results-However it is not necessary to strike down the said provisions as the existing Act elapses on 31st March 1998.

Social legislation Rent Control Acts Periodic revision of Necessity for Held, Periodic revision in social legislation like Rent Control Act is necessary to strike a balance between rival interests-Its absence results it increasing injustice to one section of the society leading to increase in lawlessness and undermining of the authority of law Continuance of such law becomes unreasonable, discriminatory and ultra-vires Article 14-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14.

Legislation-Lapse of time Reasonableness of Held, with the passage of time a legislation which was justified when enacted may become arbitrary and unreasonable with the change in circumstances.

Legal Maxims:

'Lex injusta non est lex-Applicability of.

Two writ petitions on behalf of several landlords were filed in the High Court of Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 5(10) (B), Section 11 (1) and Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 inter alia, on the ground that the said provisions pertaining to standard rent were ultra vires Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently vold. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the landlords filed the present appeals which were heard alongwith the connected writ petitions bearing numbers 17/96 and 824/96.

On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the restriction on the right of the landlords to increase rents, which had been frozen as on 1st September 1940 or at the time of the first letting, was no longer a reasonable restriction and the said provisions had with the passage of time, become arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and consequently ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution; and in view of the constant escalation in prices due to inflation and corresponding fall in the value of Rupee, ceiling on rentals, such as the one imposed by Section 5(10)(a) and (b) read with Sections 7 and 11 of the Bombay Rent Act, was totally arbitrary, unrealistic and unreasonable.

On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the State was aware about the problem of the landlords and was proceeding in the right direction to obviate their difficulties by introducing certain amendments in the Bombay Rent Act in 1987. By virtue of these amendments, a landlord was allowed to increase the rent for an improvement or structural alteration of the premises. Further the provisions relating to standard rent were not to apply for a period of five years to any premises, the construction or reconstruction of which was completed on or after the appointed date, namely 1-10-87. The landlord could also increase the rent in case he was required to pay fresh rates, charges etc. to the Government.

Disposing of the matters, this Court.