https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172390 The State amendment was upheld as within legislative competence under the doctrine of pith and substance, because its substance fell within fields relating to property transfer, contracts, civil procedure, and land or landlord-tenant regulation. It was also held not to be colourable legislation, since the law altered the legal basis of occupation rather than directly overruling prior judicial decisions, and therefore did not breach separation of powers. The classification of requisitioned premises and their occupants was found rational and linked to preventing sudden eviction and homelessness, so the amendment was not arbitrary and did not offend Article 14. The constitutional challenge failed, and the earlier contrary view was set aside. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 15:32:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172390 The State amendment was upheld as within legislative competence under the doctrine of pith and substance, because its substance fell within fields relating to property transfer, contracts, civil procedure, and land or landlord-tenant regulation. It was also held not to be colourable legislation, since the law altered the legal basis of occupation rather than directly overruling prior judicial decisions, and therefore did not breach separation of powers. The classification of requisitioned premises and their occupants was found rational and linked to preventing sudden eviction and homelessness, so the amendment was not arbitrary and did not offend Article 14. The constitutional challenge failed, and the earlier contrary view was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172390