Conditional legislation and rent control exemptions: reconstruction may qualify as construction, but only when substantial rebuilding is shown.

Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was upheld as valid because the exemption power was treated as conditional legislation that withdrew statutory protection rather than as an impermissible delegation, and the Article 14 challenge failed absent proof of arbitrary use. Reconstruction may amount to "construction" under an exemption notification, but only where the rebuilding is substantial enough to be construction in substance; partial alteration or repair is insufficient. Section 13(1) did not bar a civil court from passing a decree for ejectment after expiry of the exemption period, leaving execution issues to the executing court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which empowers the State Government to exempt buildings or classes of buildings from the Act, is invalid for excessive delegation or as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether reconstruction of premises amounts to "construction" within the meaning of the exemption notification issued under Section 3. (iii) Whether a decree for ejectment can be passed when the period of exemption has expired and Section 13(1) of the Act is invoked.

Issue (i): Whether Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which empowers the State Government to exempt buildings or classes of buildings from the Act, is invalid for excessive delegation or as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power under Section 3 was treated as a power to withdraw the special statutory protection and restore the ordinary law, rather than as a power to make new legislation. Read as a whole, the Act disclosed its policy of controlling rent and eviction in urban areas and furnished sufficient guidance for the exercise of the exemption power. The exemption power was held to be analogous to conditional legislation, not an impermissible delegation of essential legislative function. The challenge under Article 14 also failed because the mere possibility of abuse was not enough to invalidate the provision in the absence of proved arbitrary exercise.

Conclusion: Section 3 was upheld as valid and not ultra vires.

Issue (ii): Whether reconstruction of premises amounts to "construction" within the meaning of the exemption notification issued under Section 3.

Analysis: The notification used the expression "buildings constructed" and did not confine itself to wholly new buildings. The Court held that reconstruction may amount to construction, but the question depends on the extent and character of the work done. If the rebuilding is substantial and amounts in substance to the construction of a building, the exemption applies; if the work is only partial alteration or repair, it does not. Applying that approach, the Court held in one matter that the rebuilding was substantial enough to attract the notification, while in the other the work was only partial and did not amount to construction of the building.

Conclusion: Reconstruction may amount to construction, but on the facts of one appeal the notification applied and on the facts of the other it did not.

Issue (iii): Whether a decree for ejectment can be passed when the period of exemption has expired and Section 13(1) of the Act is invoked.

Analysis: Section 13(1) was held to regulate the procedure for eviction and not to bar the civil court's jurisdiction to pass a decree. The possibility that execution might later be affected by the Act was left to the executing court when and if execution was sought. The expiry of the exemption period therefore did not prevent the passing of a decree.

Conclusion: A decree for ejectment could be passed notwithstanding the plea based on Section 13(1).

Final Conclusion: The common constitutional challenge failed, the exemption-notification issue succeeded only in one appeal and failed in the others on the facts, and the civil court's power to decree ejectment was affirmed; as a result, all the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory exemption clause is valid where the Act sufficiently states its policy and the provision operates as conditional legislation, and reconstruction will attract an exemption notification only when the work done is substantial enough to amount in substance to construction of a building.

---