A discretionary power vested in the State Govt. It is pointed out that in P. J. Irani v. The State of Madras(') an identical provision • contained in the earlier enactment, namely, the Madras Buildings /f" (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 was upheld in the context of ~ Art. 14 of the Constitution by this Court on the basis that the I Preamble and the operative provisions of that Act gave sufficient \ B guidance for the exercise of the discretionary power vested in the State Govt., namely, that the said power was to be exercised in cases where the protection given by the Act caused great hardship to the ..,. landlord or was the subject of abuse by the tenant; and it is urged , that similar guidance is afforded hy the Preamble and the operative provisions of the instant Act ands. 29 cannot be said to be violative c of Art.14. The respondents have further contended that even the point regarding the constitutional validity of granting exemption to buildings belonging to charities, religious or secular in the context of the equal protection clause of Art.14 could be said to have been concluded against the tenants of such buildings by the observations of this Court in P.J.Jrani's case (supra); it is pointed out that though_),/ D in that case this Court was dealing with a Notification granting exemption in favour of a particular individual building, the Court has made observations which clearly indicate that where it is a case of granting exemption in favour of a class of buildings all that is required is that the classification must be based on rational grounds i.e. grounds germane to carry out the policy or the purpose of the Act and by way of illustration the Court has in terms stated that if such fl E exemption were to be granted in favour of all buildings belonging to charities, religious or secular, such classification would be reasonable and proper, being based on intelllgible differentia having nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the exercise of power of exemption. Even otherwise, the State Govt. in their counter-affidavit dated 10th February, 1981 and supplementary counter-affidavit dated F 24th September, 1983 have furnished material on the basis of which it has sought to justify the said exemption and it has been urged that ,i the same conforms to and falls within the guidelines indicated in that decision governing the exercise of the power. The respondents have • further sought to justify the grant of total exemption mainly on the basis that the freedom (right) to recover the reasonable market rent G would be ineffective without the freedom to evict the tenant.
