JUDGMENT 1. ON January 3, 1963, the petitioner applied under section 5 of the calcutta Thika Tenancy Act. 1949, for ejectment of the opposite parties who were thika tenants under her in respect of the land bearing premises No. 7b, beliaghata Road, and measuring about 2 cottas 4 chittaks at a monthly rental of Rs. 45/ -. The grounds of eviction stated in the application are (1) that the tenants had failed to pay an arrear of rent due in respect of the holding and (2) that the tenants had failed to us or occupy a major part of the holding for more than six consecutive months. These two grounds were specified respectively in clause (i) and (v) of section 3 of the Act as it stood at the time. By his order dated September 27, 1963, the Thika Controller allowed the application on both grounds. The tenants took an appeal and the Appeal late Tribunal by its order dated March 31, 1964, set aside the order of the controller and sent back the case on remand for a fresh trial. On January 16, 1965, the Thika Controller again allowed the application holding that both the grounds for eviction had been established. The tenants again preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on April 29, 1965. The tenants then moved this court under Article 227 of the Constitution giving rise to Civil Revision Case no. 2732 of 1965. By his order dated august 20, 1969, S. K. Chakravarti, J. made this Rule absolute holding that the order of remand made on March 31, 1964, in the appeal taken by the tenants was without jurisdiction and set aside the order and all subsequent proceedings in the case as null and void. His Lordships held that the paid appeal should be treated as pending and gave direction for the re-hearing of the appeal. 2. THE Appellate Tribunal hearing the appeal pursuant to the order of Chakravarti, J. found that there was no dispute that the major part of the holding had been sub-let by the tenants who did not personally occupy the promises. 2. THE Appellate Tribunal hearing the appeal pursuant to the order of Chakravarti, J. found that there was no dispute that the major part of the holding had been sub-let by the tenants who did not personally occupy the promises. The tribunal however, allowed the appeal preferred by the tenants and dismissed the application under section 5 of the Act on the view of that after the amendment of the Calcutta Thika tenancy Act, 1949, by the Calcutta thika Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act 1969 (West Bengal Act XXIX of 1969) the grounds on which the eviction of the tenants was sought were no longer available as both these grounds have been deleted with retrospective effect from section 3 by the amendment Act. In the present Rule the petitioner questions the correctness of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal made on September 13, 1971, dismissing the application under section 5. The petitioner however has in the meantime taken possession of the disputed holding in execution of the order of eviction passed by the Thika Controller. By the Second Amendment Act 1969 (West Bengal Act XXIX of 1969) various changes were made in the parent act of 1949. The original section 3 of the parent Act which set out the grounds on which a thika tenant was liable to be ejected was substituted by a new section 3. In the new section 3 some of the grounds included in the Original section appear in a modified form and several grounds have been altogether deleted. For instance grounds specified in clause (i) and (v) of the Original section 3 do not find a place in the section as amended. Section 18 of the amendment Act provides that the amendment Made to the print Art shall have effect in all pending application and appeals for ejectment of thika tenants. me Appellate Tribunal held that me tenants could not be ejected either on the ground of default or on the ground that they had failed to occupy a major part of the holding for more than consecutive months because these were not grounds on specified the eviction of thika tenants was permitted under the amended section 3 winch has been given retrospective operation by section 13 of the Amendment act. 3. 3. IT was argued on behalf of the petitioner that section 13 of the amendment Act in so far as it gives retrospective operation to the new section 3 from winch the ground specified in clause (v) of the original section 3 has been deleted is ultra vires being violative of Article 19 (1) (f) of the constitution. It was contended that the deletion with retrospective effect of clause (v) of the old section further abridges the landlord's right to hold property without advancing the under lying purposes of the amendment and is as such unreasonable. 4. IT has to be examined therefore, whether the object intended to be achieved, the evil sought to be remedied by the amendment Act is accrued by striking out with retrospective effect clause (v) of the old section 3. The purpose of the amendment Act is set out in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal. The State was no originally a party to this revision case but hi view of the challenge to the constitutional validity of section 13 of the amendment Act, notice has given to the Advocate General and the said affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the State. In paragraph 6 of true affidavit-in-opposition tendency under lying the amendment and the object intended to be achieved by are stated to be the protection of the 'legitimate interest' of thika tenants, internal, by restricting further the grounds of ejectment against a thika tenant From the objects and reasons of the Amendment act it further appears that the intention of the legislature in amending the parent Act was to protect and improve the lot of eight million thika tenants in Calcutta. In our opinion, there is substance in the arguments that by deleting the grounds specified in clause (v) of the original Section 3 with retrospective effect the intended object is not further ed in any way. A thika tenant fails to occupy the major portion of the holding either because he has abandoned the holding or he has transferred possession of the same. A thika tenant fails to occupy the major portion of the holding either because he has abandoned the holding or he has transferred possession of the same. In the case of a tenant who has abandoned the holding and has a proceeding for ejectment pending against him alai the said ground, there is no question of protecting his possession and stifling the proceeding against him does not contribute to the improvement of the lot of thika tenants in Calcutta, In the case where a thika tenant has sub-let the holding to bharatias and a proceeding for his eviction was pending when the amendment act came into force, it is difficult to see how by extending the coverage of that Act to such a tenant the 'legitimate interest' of a thika tenant is protected. A class of tenants who are really intermediaries earning a profit and liable to be ejected now has the protection of the act extended to them. Bui- a middle man's interest can hardly be called the legitimate interest of a thita tenant. 5. SECTION 13 of the amendment which provided that the amendments made to the parent Act will affect all pending proceedings for ejectment of thika tenants has the consequence inter alia, of striking out with retrospective effect the grounds of ejectment specified in clause (v) of section 3 of the parent act. The retrospective operation of section 13 having this consequence seems to us for the reasons stated above to impose unreasonable restriction on the: right to hold property guaranteed under article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. In the case of Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar, A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1667 the Supreme Court observed that Though the legislature can pass a law add make its provisions retrospective, iv would be relevant to consider the eject of such retrospective operation of the law both in respect of legislative competence of the Legislature and the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by it, and that it may be open to a party affected by the provisions of the Act to contend that the restrictions imposed by the Art are so unreasonable that They should be struck down on the ground that they contravene his fundamental rights. We hold that section 13 of the Calcutta thika Tenancy (Second Amendment.)Act 1969 (West Bengal Act XXIX of 1969) in so far it has the effect of deleting with retrospective effect the grounds of ejectment specified in clause (v) of section 3 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy act 1949 is ultra vires as it imposes un reasonable restriction on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution 6. IT was argued on behalf of the state of West Bengal that the restriction imposed was not unreasonable at it was necessary to extend protection to the class of tenants liable to be ejected, under the aforesaid ground in order to protect the Bharatias under them. This is a contention without any amendment. The object of the amendment Act was to improve the lot of thika tenants. Bharatias are not thika tenants, besides, section 10 of the parent Act gives ample protection to the Bharatias. In the result, the Rule is made absolute the impugned order is set aside and that of Thika Controller restored. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.