Thommen, J. - (1.) Civil Appeal No. 4043 of 1987. The question which arises in this appeal is as regards the validity of clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The challenge against the clause on the ground of its alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution was rejected by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The High Court following its earlier decision in the J and K Bank Ltd. v. State of J and K, AIR 1987 J and K 18 upheld the validity of the clause.
(2.) The impugned provision, as it stood at the relevant time, reads: "1(3) Nothwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), nothing in this Act shall apply to- (i) ********** (ii) Omitted (iii) any tenancy in respect of any house or shop where the income of the tenant, whether accruing within or outside the State, exceeds rupees 40,000 per annum; Explanation:the word 'income' means 'net income'. "
(3.) The appellant, the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited, is the tenant of the building in question. Its claim for the protection of the Act was disallowed by the courts below on the ground that clause (iii) of subsection (3) of Section 1, read with the Explanation, was attracted in respect of the appellant.;