Raval And Co. vs K.G. Ramachandran And Ors. on 20 January, 1966
This matter came up before a Full Bench of the Assam High Court in Shyam Behari v. Union of India, AIR 1963 Assam 94 (FB). The learned Judges held that the infraction of Art, 358 on Art. 19 was only in respect of a law enacted during the emergency, and the validity of an earlier law could certainly be challenged on the ground of violating Art. 19 of the constitution. With respect, we agree with this view, and must hold that it is open to Sri Thiruvenkatachari to show that certain provisions of the 1960 Act were violative if Art 19. If that be so the validity of Act 11 of 1964 may not really arise since both in respect of eviction under a contractual tenancy and the fixation of fair rent differing from the contractual rent, during its subsistence, the relevant provisions of the 1960 Act would have to be struck down, should the argument prevail. The very basis of Act 11 of 1964 will therefore disappear.