SANT LAL BHARTI versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 01-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' \ 
SANT LAL BHARTI 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
DECEMBER t 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 32 and 226-Petition 
challenging Constitutional validity of certain provisions of a Statute--
Must be in the context of certain facts and not in abstract or vacuum-
Legislative wisdom of a legislation-Whether a ground for challenging 
validity of the Act passed by one State in comparison with similar Acts 
passed by other States. 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: .. Section 4-
Whether constitutionally valid-Rent prevalent in 1938--Basis for 
determination of fair rent-Whether unreasonable. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning 
the vires of s. 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 
He did not, however, mention the particulars of the premises of which 
he claimed to be the owner, and in respect of which he was making a 
grievance. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine. 
Hence the appeal. 
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that s. 4 of the Act 
was ultra vires the Constitution and violative of Art. 14, and would be 
an interference with the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 
19(1)(g) and was unreasonable, and unjust inasmuch as it provided 
that rent prevalent in 1938 should be taken as the basis for the 
determination of higher rent and that pegging the rent prevalent in 
1938 as the basic rent, was inequitable and unjust in the background 
of the tremendous rise in prices, and that the provisions of fixation of 
rent in other States were different and were more fair and just and 
reasonable in comparison. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 A petition challenging the constitutional validity of 
certain provisions must be in the context of certain facts and not in 
abstract or vacuum. I l09E] 
107 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ri9ss1 2 s.c.R. 
A 
In the instant case, the essential facts necessary to examine the 
valitlity of the Act are lacking. On this ground the petition was rightly 
rejected and this Conrt is not inclined to interfere with the order of 
the High Conrt on·this ground alone. [109E-F) 
B 
2.1 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 State on 
the same subject its provisions are discriminatory or different. Nor 
does it contemplate a law of the Centre or of the State dealing with 
similar subjects being held to be unconstitutional by a process of 
comparative study of the provisions of two enactments. The source of 
authority for the two statutes being different, Art. 14 can have no 
C 
application. I 113C-D I 
2.2 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. The legislative wisdom of 
D such legislation is not a ground on which the validity of the Act can be 
challenged. I ll3B I 
2.3 It must be the function of the legislature 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 
E particular legislation in question by comparison. What may be the 
problem in Madras may not be the problem in Punjab. I l l3H; l l4A] 
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 started tremendously after the end of the Second 
F 
World War after the partition of the country. It cannot, therefore, be 
said that per se there is unreasonableness in fixing the prices in 1938 
level. [l14A·BI 
One of the objects of the Act was to restrict the increase in rent. 
With that object, the Act as provided certain provisions as to fixation 
G of the fair rent. Therefore, having regard to the specific preamble of 
the Act there is nothing unreasonable in the Scheme contemplated 
unders.4oftheAct. [ll4B·CI 
Prabhakara Nair and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 
[1987] 4 S.C.C. 238 and M/s. Raval & Co. v. K. G. Ramachandran 
H and others, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 818·[1974] 2 S.C.R. 629, referred to. 
1 
' 
I 
~ 
~ 
' 
-
}-
SANT LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB [MVKHARJI, J.] 
109 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
1637 of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.3. 1986 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 1055 of 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.