SANT LAL BHARTI versus STATE OF PUNJAB

SANT LAL BHARTI versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Essential facts to examine the validity of the Act are lacking; constitutional validity must be challenged in the context of specific facts. Article 14 does not permit invalidation of State legislation merely due to differences with statutes of other States. Pegging fair rent at rates prevalent in 1938 is not per se unreasonable given legislative purpose and historical context; Section 4 is not unconstitutional or unreasonable in its scheme.

Parties
Appellant: Sant Lal Bharti; Respondent: State of Punjab
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Writ Petition in Limine by High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Constitutional Validity of Statute, Discrimination Under Article 14, Fair Rent Determination
Constitutional Law Rent Control Constitutional Validity of Statute Discrimination Under Article 14 Fair Rent Determination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sant Lal Bharti

Appellant

State of Punjab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Writ Petition in Limine by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 4 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is constitutionally valid
  2. 2 Whether pegging rent at rates prevalent in 1938 is unreasonable or unjust
  3. 3 Whether legislative wisdom or comparison with other State statutes is a ground for constitutional challenge

Ratio Decidendi

Essential facts to examine the validity of the Act are lacking; constitutional validity must be challenged in the context of specific facts. Article 14 does not permit invalidation of State legislation merely due to differences with statutes of other States. Pegging fair rent at rates prevalent in 1938 is not per se unreasonable given legislative purpose and historical context; Section 4 is not unconstitutional or unreasonable in its scheme.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal fails and is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.