RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners who are tenants of non-residential premises in the city of Bangalore and elsewhere in the State have questioned the constitutional validity of section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control act ('the Act' for short ). ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the question arising for consideration, it is necessary to set out briefly the scheme of the act. The Preamble to the Act reads :"an Act to provide for the control of rents and evictions, for the leasing of building. ;, to control rates of hotels and lodging houses and for certain other matters in the State of Karnataka. Whereas it is expedient to provide for the control of rents and evictions, for the leasing of buildings, to control rates of hotels and lodging houses and for certain other matters. "part-ll of the Act regulates the leasing of buildings. Inter alia the provisions in this part requires the landlord of a residential or non-residential premises to give intimation of the vacancy to the jurisdictional Rent Controller within a period of two weeks from the date of occurrence of the vacancy vide section 4 of the Act. Section 5 empowers the Rent Controller to direct the landlord to lease the vacant building in favour of a public authority or an individual as directed in his order. Section 8 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Rent Controller before issuing the direction, which he is entitled to give under Section 5 of the Act. Part-Ill of the Act (vide Sections 14 to 18) provides for fixation of fair rent. Section 21 of the Act provides protection to the tenants against eviction. In view of the said provision, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract or agreement, a landlord could seek eviction of his tenant from the premises belonging to him only on one or more of the grounds specified in different clauses of section 21 of the Act and subject to other conditions imposed by the Section. As the exclusion of this section to non-rasidential premisss, the monthly rent of which exceeds Rs. 500/- which is the reason for challenging the validity of section 31 of the Act, it is appropriate to refer to some of the safeguards against eviction provided in Section 21 of the Act. As the exclusion of this section to non-rasidential premisss, the monthly rent of which exceeds Rs. 500/- which is the reason for challenging the validity of section 31 of the Act, it is appropriate to refer to some of the safeguards against eviction provided in Section 21 of the Act. The Section bars the Court from making an order or decree against a tenant notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract. It, however, provides for making an order for recovery of possession of a premises from the tenant by the landlord on one or the other grounds specified in various clauses of the Seclion. The grounds, Inter alia, are, nonpayment of rent or sub-letting or that the landlord requires the premises, reasonably bona fide, for his own occupation, in esses where the eviction of the tenants is sought on grounds of non-payment of rent. Section 21 (2) (iii) of the Act provides that if the tenant were to pay the rent as directed by the Court, no order of eviction can be made. In cases where the eviction is sought for on the ground of bona fide use and occupation by the landlord, Section 21 (4) provides that the court should examine the question of comparative hardship and cannot order an eviction if the Court is satisfied that by granting eviction greater hardship would be caused to the tenant than to the landlord by not granting the eviction. A reading of different clauses of the provision would indicate the amount of protection given to the tenants against seeking their eviction by the landlords. ( 3 ) SECTION 31 of the Act grants exemption from the provisions of Section 21 of the Act and other sections in the said part. The said Section reads :"31. Exemption in Respect of Certain Buildings : Nothing contained in this Part shallapply to non-residential building the monthly rent of which exceeds five hundred rupaes or the annual rental value of which exceeds six thousand rupees. Provided that the exemption under this Section shall not apply : (i) to any building taken on lease bv a public authority or by an educational institution ; or (ii) to any building occupied by more than one tenent each paying a monthly rent not exceeding five hundred rupees or an annual rent not exceeding six thousand rupees. Provided that the exemption under this Section shall not apply : (i) to any building taken on lease bv a public authority or by an educational institution ; or (ii) to any building occupied by more than one tenent each paying a monthly rent not exceeding five hundred rupees or an annual rent not exceeding six thousand rupees. "a reading of the provision would at once indicate that the Legislature considered that in the matter of giving protection against eviction as provided in Section 21 of the Act, the non-residential buildings in respect of which monthly rent exceaded Rs. 500/- or the annual rental value exceeded Rs. 6,000/- other then those excepted by the provisio formed a well defined class and the legislature considered that the protection incorporated in Section 21 of the act need not be extended to such classes of tenants of non-residsntial buildings. ( 4 ) THE petitioner's grievance is that the above classification was made by the Legislature in the year 1961 when the value of Rupee was about cent per cent and therefore the Legislature might have considered that persons who ward tenants of non-residential premises on a monthly rent of more than Rs. 500/- were not persons who were required to be protected against eviction, and it may be that the classification could not, at that point of time be regarded as having had no rational basis. But the contention of the petitioners is that in the last 25 years after the commencement of the act, the basis for the classification made under Section 31 had ceased to exist long back in view of the steep fail in the value of the Rupee and the steep rise in the rentals and therefore even though the exemption then had the nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the legislature, by efflux of time the nexus has disappeared end as a result the provision has become discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners have stated that the non-residential premises in respect of which monthly rent was much below rs. 500/- in the year 1961 was now far more than Rs. 500/- and that if the intention of the Legislature was to protect tenants of non-residential buildings whose monthly rent was Rs. The petitioners have stated that the non-residential premises in respect of which monthly rent was much below rs. 500/- in the year 1961 was now far more than Rs. 500/- and that if the intention of the Legislature was to protect tenants of non-residential buildings whose monthly rent was Rs. 500/- or less in 1961, by the force of the same reasoning the said exemption must have been extended to premises whose monthly rental was more than Rs. 500/- by raising the limit, having due regard to the rate of increase in rental value and the fall of value of the rupee. As the same had not been done, the Section has become violative of Article 14 of the constitution. ( 5 ) THE principle on the basis of which the contention is raised, is that though a legislative provision was constitutional at the time when it was enacted, by efflux of time and change of circumstances, it might become unconstitutional. In support of this principle, Learned Counsel have relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Motor General Traders v State of a P. (AIR 7984 SC 87 ). The relevant portion of the Judgment reads :". . . . . . . . The garb of constitutionality which it may have possessed earlier has become worn out end its unconstitutionally is now brought out to a successful challenge. " ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Arya v State of Tamilnadu (ILR 1986 Kar. 2069), in which Section 30 (ii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, was struck down as violative of Article 14 of the constitution, fully covers the point raised in these petitions. ( 7 ) THE fact that there has been steep rise in the rentals and steep fall in the value of rupee is uncontrovertible. As a result the rental value of non-residential premises has increased manifold. Therefore the very non-residential premises to which section 31 afforded protection, have ceased to have the protection only because of increase in rentals which the tenants had agreed to pay. The following statement showing the original and revised rentals makes out this point.