B. N. KIRPAL, J. - (1.) Lex injusta non est lex, unjust laws are not laws, is what is being contended by the landlords in their challenge in these appeals, and the connected writ petitions, to the validity of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act') in so far as it provides that landlords cannot charge rent in excess of the standard rent.
(2.) The appellants are landlords or their representatives of different premises in Bombay which have been given on rent to various tenants. They had filed in the High Court of Bombay writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(10)(B), Section 11(1) and Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, inter alia, on the ground that the said provisions pertaining to standard rent were ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently void. The main challenge to the said provisions was on the ground 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. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that the object of the Bombay Rent Act was not to provide to the landlord an adequate return on its investment and it was not open to him to claim an increase in the rent by taking into account the increase in the land prices, etc. The Court also observed that the writ petitions lacked particulars in order to satisfy the Court that the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were unreasonable or arbitrary.
(3.) The Bombay Rent Act came into force on 13th February 1938. This Act was meant to be a temporary measure. The original act was enacted only for two years with a power to the Government to extend the same by notification in this behalf. This Act has been extended from time to time at least on twenty occasions and the present extension remains in force upto 31st March 1998. Sections 5(10), 7, 9(b) and 11(1)(a) which are being impugned in the present cases read as follows: "5(10) "Standard rent" in relation to any premises means - (a) where the standard rent is fixed by the Court and the Controller respectively under the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939, or the Bombay Rent, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, such standard rent; or (b) when the standard rent is not so fixed - subject to the provisions of Section 11, - (i) the rent at which the premises were let on the first day of September 1940, (ii) where they were not let on the first day of September 1940, the rent at which they were last let before that day, or (iii) where they were first let after the first day of September 1940, the rent at which they were first let, or (iii -a) notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (iii), the rent of the premises referred to in sub -Section (1A) of Section 4 shall, on expiry of the period of five years mentioned in that sub -section, not exceed the amount equivalent to the amount of net return of fifteen per cent, on the investment in the land and building and all the outgoing in respect of such premises; or] (iv) on any of the cases specified in Section 11 the rent fixed by the Court; 7. [(1)] Except where the rent is liable to periodical increment by virtue of an agreement entered into before the first day of September 1940, it shall not be lawful to claim or receive on account of rent for any premises any increase above the Standard Rent, unless the landlord was, before the coming into operation of this Act, entitled to recover such increase under the provisions of the Bombay Rents Restriction Act, 1939 , or the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944 or is entitled to recover such increase under the provisions of this Act [either before or after the commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, 1986]. (2)(a) No person shall claim or receive on account of any licence fee or charge for any premises or any part thereof, anything in excess of the standard rent and permitted increase (or, as the case may be, a proportionate part thereto), for such premises if they had been let, and such additional sum as is reasonable consideration for any amenities or other services supplied with the premises. (b) All the provisions of this Act in respect of the standard rent and permitted increases in relation to any premises let, or if let, to a tenant, shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any licence fee or charge and permitted increases in relation to the premises given on licence; and accordingly, the licensee or licenser may apply to the Court for the fixation of the licence fee or charge and permitted increases and the additional sum mentioned above.] 9. (b) Before making any increase under clause (a), the landlord shall obtain a certificate from the local authority that he was required by it to make or to provide such additions, alterations, improvements or amenities and has completed them in conformity with its requirements. 11. (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 11 A in any of the following] cases the Court may, upon an application made to it for that purpose, or in any suit or proceedings, fix the standard rent at such amount as, having regard to the provisions of this Act and circumstances of the case, the Court deems just - where any premises are first let after the first day of September 1940 and the rent at which they are so let is in the opinion of the Court excessive; or where the Court is satisfied that there is no sufficient evidence to ascertain the rent at which the premises were let in any one of the cases mentioned in [paragraphs (i) to (iii) of sub -clause (10) of Section 5; or where by reason of the premises having been let at one time as a whole or in parts and at another time in parts or as a whole, or for any other reason, any difficulty arises in giving effect to this Part; or where any premises have been or are let rent -free or at a nominal rent or for some consideration in addition to rent; or without prejudice to the provisions of sub -Section (1A) of Section 4 and paragraph (iii -a) of sub -clause (b) of clause (10) of Section 5, where the Court is satisfied that the rent in respect of the premises referred to therein exceeds the limit of standard rent laid down in the said paragraph (iii -a); or where there I any dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding the amount of standard rent. ;