changes consequent to Court‟s interpretation, it is apparent that the “reality check” which the petitioners urge is far from it. Whilst it is perhaps true that several tenants do not deserve protection of a beneficial legislation – which owe its origin as a temporary measure, to address best, what were housing security, the fact remains that the housing situation is far from ideal even today. Whilst the petitioners may be at the receiving end, in the sense that they are landlords/landladies, of commercial tenancies and therefore, unable to establish need for all the premises that they own, surely that ipso facto cannot surely outweigh that consideration; i.e. that the landlords need to carry on the occupation or business of making a living out of rents and cannot outweigh all other considerations which underlie the objective of DRC Act. Those objectives, i.e. protection of a section (which apparently continues to be a large section of the population) from the depradations of unscrupulous landlords, still has relevance. Without the protection of rent legislations, the weakest section of the society to whom the DRC Act still has relevance, may well face a daily threat of eviction. That some of them are vacated outside the framework of the law (through strongarm tactics or extra legal force) is not a ground for ignoring that if they choose to approach the Court, the law does afford protection. In this context, it is useful to again iterate that the abuse of law is not a ground for its unconstitutionality. Equally, that it cannot be taken recourse to by some who deserved its benefit cannot be a ground for ignoring the protection it gives.
