https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171726 Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was upheld as a valid delegated exemption provision: the classification between exempted and non-exempted buildings had a rational nexus with the rent-control scheme and the object of encouraging new construction, so it did not offend Article 14 or amount to excessive delegation. The Chief Commissioner of Chandigarh was treated as a competent authority to issue the exemption notifications under the constitutional and statutory framework, and the notifications were therefore valid. The exemption notification dated 31 January 1973 was construed as prospective only, because no clear retrospective intent was expressed; buildings that had already satisfied the conditions before that date remained subject to the Act. en-us Thu, 20 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Jan 2022 10:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171726 Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was upheld as a valid delegated exemption provision: the classification between exempted and non-exempted buildings had a rational nexus with the rent-control scheme and the object of encouraging new construction, so it did not offend Article 14 or amount to excessive delegation. The Chief Commissioner of Chandigarh was treated as a competent authority to issue the exemption notifications under the constitutional and statutory framework, and the notifications were therefore valid. The exemption notification dated 31 January 1973 was construed as prospective only, because no clear retrospective intent was expressed; buildings that had already satisfied the conditions before that date remained subject to the Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171726