Anil Dev Singh, J. ( 1 ) IN this public interest writ petition the petitioner. Commoncause, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, seeks adirection to the first and the second respondents. Union of India through thesecretary, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, and the Union of Indiathrough the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs respectively,to issue a notificatioin in the Official Gazette notifying the date on which the Delhirent Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) (for short the new Rent Act ) shall come into force. The facts lie in a narrow compass. ( 2 ). Home is an eternal quest of all mankind. Law which encourages construction of houses to meet one of the basic demands of habitat is the paramount requirementin this country. Realising this need and voicing its concern regarding the acuteshortage of housing, the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran Nair etc. etc. v. State oftamil Nadu and Others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2117, expressed the necessity fora national housing policy. In this regard it observed as follows : "it is common knowledge that there is acute shortage of housing, variousfactors have led to this problem. The laws relating to letting and of landlord andtenant in different States have from different States angles tried to grapple theproblem. Yet in view of the magnitude of the problem, the problem has becomeinsoluble and the litigations abound and the people suffer. More houses must,therefore, be built, more accommodation and more spaces made available forthe people to live in. The laws of landlord and tenant must be made rational,human, certain and capable of being quickly implemented. Those landlordswho are having premises in their control should be induced and encouragedto part with available accommodation for limited periods on certain safeguardswhich will strictly ensure their recovery when wanted. Men with moneyshould be given proper and meaningful incentives as in some Europeancountries to build houses, tax holidays for new houses can be encouraged. Thetenants should also be given protection and security and certain amount ofreasonableness in the rent. Escalation of prices in the urban properties, land,materials and houses must be rationally checked. This country very vitally andvery urgently requires a National Housing Policy if we wan t to prevent amajorbreakdown of law and order and gradual dissolutionment of people. After allshelter is one of our fundamental rights. Escalation of prices in the urban properties, land,materials and houses must be rationally checked. This country very vitally andvery urgently requires a National Housing Policy if we wan t to prevent amajorbreakdown of law and order and gradual dissolutionment of people. After allshelter is one of our fundamental rights. New rational housing policy mustattract new buildings, encourage new buildings, make available new spaces,rationalise the rent structure and rationalise the rent provisions and bringcertain amount of uniformity though leaving scope for sufficient flexibilityamong the States to adjust such legislation according to its needs. This Courtand the High Court should also be relieved of the heavy burdens of this rentlitigations. Tier of appeals should be curtailed. Laws must be simple, rationaland clear. Tenants are in all cases not the weaker sections. There are in all casesnot the weaker sections. There are those who are weak both among thelandlords as well as the tenants. Litigations must come to end quickly. Suchnew Housing Policy must comprehend the present and anticipate the future. The idea of a National Rent Tribunal on an All India basis with quickerprocedure should be examined. This has become an urgent imperative oftoday s revolution. A fast changing society cannot operate with unchanginglaw and preconceived judicial attitude. " ( 3 ). Five years after the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Prabhakaran scase (supra), the national housing policy was laid before both the Houses ofparliament. The policy was considered and adopted by the Parliament. Consequentthereto a model Rent Control Bill was drafted by the Government of India with theapproval of the representatives of the State Governments. The model bill wascirculated to all the State Governments including the Governments of the Unionterritories, and the same was also tabled before the Parliament. On 5/02/1994the President of India assented to the Constitution (Seventy-first Amendment) Act,1994, in order to enable the State Governments to set up State level Rent Tribunalsfor speedy disposal of rent cases. This was with a view to exclude the jurisdiction ofthe Courts which are otherwise over crowded and the rent litigation is not beingdisposed of speedily. However, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India wasnot excluded. ( 4 ). The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 underwent amendments from time to timein 1960,1963,1976,1984 and 1988. The amendments made in 1988 were based on therecommendations of the Economic Administrative Reforms Commission and thenational Commission on Urbanisation. However, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India wasnot excluded. ( 4 ). The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 underwent amendments from time to timein 1960,1963,1976,1984 and 1988. The amendments made in 1988 were based on therecommendations of the Economic Administrative Reforms Commission and thenational Commission on Urbanisation. Although the amendments were substantialin nature, they did not go far enough to meet the target envisaged by the Supremecourt in Prabhakaran s case (supra ). They also failed to remove the disincentives tothe growth of rental housing and left many questions unanswered and problemsunaddressed. They also did not measure up to the Model Rent Control Bill. Therefore,the Delhi Rent Bill, 1994 was drafted and the same was REFERRED TO to the Standingcommittee of Parliament on Urban and Rural Development. The Committee afterdeliberating and considering the matter expressed the view that though the Bill wascomprehensive and elaborate, certain changes should be effected. Before expressingits opinion the Standing Committee of Parliament afforded an opportunity ofhearing to the representatives of the house owners and tenants. On 26/08/1994,the Delhi Rent Bill, 1994 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha and the same was passedby that House on 29/05/1995. Thereafter, the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabhaand the same was passed on 3/06/1995. Consequent to the passing of the Delhi Rentbill, 1994 by both Houses of Parliament, the President of India assented to the sameon 23/08/1995. Thereafter, the new Rent Act was published in the Gazette ofindia, Extraordinary, Part II, Section I, dated 23/08/1995 as Act No. 33 of 1995. Thus, the Bill was enacted into an Act. However, the new Rent Act for coming intoforce requires a notification of the Central Government under Section 1 (3) of the Actwhich provides that "the Act shall come into force on such date as the Centralgovernment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint". Despite thelapseof four years, the new Rent Act has not been notified by the Central Government. Thenet result is that the new Rent Act of the Parliament which was meant to remove legalimpediments to the growth of housing in general and rental housing in particular hasnot been enforced. At this stage it will be convenient to refer to the affidavit filed onbehalf of the Government of India which was filed on 8/09/1998. Thisaffidavit reads as follows : (I) The Cabinet considered the Note in its meeting held on 19. 7. At this stage it will be convenient to refer to the affidavit filed onbehalf of the Government of India which was filed on 8/09/1998. Thisaffidavit reads as follows : (I) The Cabinet considered the Note in its meeting held on 19. 7. 97 andhad decided to enforce the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 with the amendmentscontained in the Note for the Cabinet dated 8. 7. 97. (ii) That this position was also explained through an Affidavit dated25. 7. 97 filed by Shri S. P. S. Parihar on behalf of Union of India, stalinginter-alia that Cabinet has decided to enforce the Delhi Rent Act, 19. 95with the amendments contained in the Note for the Cabinet dated8. 7. 97 and that the Amendment Bill will be introduced in theparliament. (iii) A Bill namely Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997 to amend the Delhirent Act, 1995 had been introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 28. 7. 97. (iv) On 6. 8. 97, the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997, as introduced inrajya Sabha, has been REFERRED TO to the Standing Committee on Urbanand Rural Development (1997-98) for examination and Report toparliament. (v) The Committee took evidence of various groups/individuals as wellas from the officials of this Ministry on this subject apart from callingdetailed information questionnaire which this Ministry supplied. (vi) With the dissolution of the 11th Lok Sabha the Committee on Urbanand Rural Development also stood dissolved. The Bill came back to therajya Sabha. This Bill has again been REFERRED TO to the newly constitutedstanding Committee on Urban and Rural Development by the Speakeron 25. 6. 98 after constitution of 12th Lok Sabha. (vii) After the change of the Government in the Centre, Law Ministryadvised that Government s orders must be obtained on all pendingbills. Accordingly, a Cabinet Note was put up to the Government forits decision on 16. 7. 98. (viii) Government s decision is awaited. (ix) Meanwhile, the Standing Committee on Urban and Rural Developmentheld its first sitting on 14. 8. 98. Officials of this Ministry attended thissitting and requested the Committee to defer further examination onthe matter till the Government takes a decision on the same. ( 4 ). That in view of the above position. Ministry is not in a position to bring into force Delhi Rent Act, 1995 Act XXXIII/95 as assented to by the President ofindia. " ( 5 ). ( 4 ). That in view of the above position. Ministry is not in a position to bring into force Delhi Rent Act, 1995 Act XXXIII/95 as assented to by the President ofindia. " ( 5 ). Thus, from the above said affidavit it is apparent that the Cabinet is notwilling to enforce the new Rent Act in its present form and has decided to enforcethe same with the amendments contained in the note for the Cabinet dated 8/07/1997 and for that purpose the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997, was introducedin the Rajya Sabha on 28/07/1997. After its introduction, the Delhi Rent (Amendment)Bill, 1997 was REFERRED TO to the Standing Committee on Urban and Rural Development (1997-1998) for examination and report. On dissolution of the Eleventh Lok Sabhathe said Committee also stood dissolved. After the constitution of the Twelfth Loksabha, the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997, which had come back to the Rajyasabha, was again REFERRED TO by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to the reconstitutedstanding Committee on Urban and Rural Development on 25/06/1998. However,the examination of the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997, is not being made by thecommittee at the request of the new/successor Government as latter has yet to takea decision with regard to the Bill. Thus, virtually the Central Government has notonly stalled examination of the Delhi Rent (Amendment) Bill, 1997, but has alsostalled the coming into force of the new Rent Act. ( 6 ). The question which requires consideration is whether under Section 1 (3) ofthe new Rent Act the Central Government has the power to refuse to bring the Actinto force. ( 7 ). In order to understand what power has been conferred on the Centralgovernment under Section 1 (3) of the new Kent Act, it will be necessary to refer tothe said provision. Section 1 (3) reads as fo!!ows. "1. Short title, extent and commenccment (1 ). . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . (3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may,by notification in the Official Gazelte, appoint. " ( 8 ). Section 1 (3) reads as fo!!ows. "1. Short title, extent and commenccment (1 ). . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . (3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may,by notification in the Official Gazelte, appoint. " ( 8 ). It appears to me that the above provision does not confer any power on thecentral Government to veto the new Rent Act or to refuse to implement the Will ofthe Parliament which has left it to the Central Government to decide only thequestion as to when the new Rent Act is to be brought into force. This power ofconditional legislation vested in the Central Govemment cannot be utilised for thepurpose of not bringing the new Rent Act into force at all or for nullifying andneutralising the Will of the people, which is expressed through the Parliament. Thefact that the Central Government has not issued the notification under Section 1 (3)of the new Rent Act shows that it does not fee! bound by the Parliamentary decisionto replace the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 especially when it has virtually decidednot to enforce the new Rent Act in the present form. When the Parliament realisingthe need to minimise distortion in the rental housing market and to encourage thesupply of rental housing both from the existing housing stock and from new housingstock enacted the new Rent Act, the executive cannot torpedo the same. The necessityto repeal and replace the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 for the purpose of achievingthe growth of housing in general is evident from the Statement of Objects andreasons of the new Rent Act which reads as follows : "the relations between landlords and tenants in the National Capital Territoryof Delhi are presently governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This Actcame into force on the 9/02/1959. It was amended thereafter in 1960,1963, 1976, 1984 and 1988. The amendments made in 1988 were based on therecommendations of the Economic Administrtion Reforms Commission andthe National Commission on Urbanisation. Although they were quite extensivein nature, it was felt that they did not go far enough in the matter of removalof disincentives to the growth of rental housing and left many questionsunanswered and problems unaddressed. Numerous representations for furtheramendments to the Act were received from groups of tenants and landlordsand others. 2. Although they were quite extensivein nature, it was felt that they did not go far enough in the matter of removalof disincentives to the growth of rental housing and left many questionsunanswered and problems unaddressed. Numerous representations for furtheramendments to the Act were received from groups of tenants and landlordsand others. 2. The demand for further amend ments to She Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958received fresh impetus with the tabling of the National Housing Policy in bothhouses of Parliament in 1992. The policy has since been considered andadopted by Parliament. One of its major concemsis to removelegal impedimentsto the growth of housing in general and rental housing in particular. Paragraph4. 6. 2 of the National Housing Policy specifically provides for the stimulationof investment in rental housing especially for the lower and middle incomegroups by suitable amendments to Ken! Control Laws by State Governments. The Supreme Court of India has also suggested changes in Rent Control Laws. In its judgment in the case of Prabhakaran Nair v. State of Tamil Nndu, the Courtobserved that the laws of landlords and tenants must be made rational,humane, certain and capable of being quickly implemented. In this context, amodel Rent Control Legislation was formulated by the Central Governmentand sent to the States to enable them. to carry out necessary amendments to theprevailing Rent Control Laws. Moreover, the Constitution (Seventy-Fifthamendment) Act, 1994 was passed to enable the State Governments to set upstate-level rent. Tribunals tor speedy disposal of rent cases by excluding thejurisdiction of all Courts except the Supreme Court. 3. In the light of the representations and developments REFERRED TO to above, it hasbeen decided to amend the Rent Control Law prevailing in Delhi. As theamendments are extensive and substantial in nature, instead of makingchanges in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it is proposed to repeal and replacethe said Act by enacting a fresh legislation. 4. To achieve the above purposes, the present Bill, inter cilia, seeks to provide forthe following, namely:5. On enactment, the Bill will minimise distortion in the rental housing marketand encourage the supply of rental housing both from the existing housingstock and from new housing stock. ( 9 ). The Legislature having appreciated the need for enacting the new Rent Act,it is not open to the Central Government to sit in judgment over the wisdom of thelegislature and set at naught the legislative Will. ( 9 ). The Legislature having appreciated the need for enacting the new Rent Act,it is not open to the Central Government to sit in judgment over the wisdom of thelegislature and set at naught the legislative Will. In Supreme Court Legal Aidcommittee v. Union of India and Others, JT 1998 (6) S. C. 645=x (1998) SLT 214 (SC),a three-fudge Bench of the Supreme Court gave a direction to the Union Governmentto take steps to issue the notification applying the provisions of Chapter III of thelegal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to the States/union Territories to which suchprovisions had not been made applicable, within two weeks of the passing of theorder. In that case, according to Section 1 (3) of the Legal Services Authorities Act,1987, the Act and its various provisions could come into force only by a notificationof the Central Government. The said section reads as follows : " (1) Short title, extent and commencement- (1 ). . . . (2 ). . . . . . (3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may,by notification, appoint and different dates may be appointed fordifferent provisious- of this Act and for different States, and anyreference to commencement in any provision of this Act in relation toany State shall be construed as a reference to the commencement ofthat provision in that State. "the Legal Services Authorities Act, "1987, except Chapter III thereof, was extendedto all the States vide notification of the Central Government dated 9/11/1995. However, the provisions of Chapter III of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987,were not extended to a number of States and Union Territories. The reason given bythe Central Government for not extending the provisions was that certain States hadnot framed the Rules under Section 28 of that Act. The Supreme Court not onlydirected the framing of the Rules by the States and the Union Territories but alsoasked the Central Government to issue the requisite notification applying theprovisions of Chapter III to the States and the Union Territories. In this regard, thesupreme Court made the following direction : "5. The provisions of the Act except Chapter US were extended to all the Statesand the Union Territories on 9. 11. 1995. More than two years have elapsed. Thetime available was more than sufficient for the State Government and theunion Territories to act and frame rules under Section 28 of the Act. The provisions of the Act except Chapter US were extended to all the Statesand the Union Territories on 9. 11. 1995. More than two years have elapsed. Thetime available was more than sufficient for the State Government and theunion Territories to act and frame rules under Section 28 of the Act. It isdirected that the States and the Union Territories which have not framed therules so far, i. e. , the above-mentioned States/union Territories excluding theunion Territory of Chandigarh shall frame the relevant rules under Section 28and notify the same within a period of two months. As soon as the rules areframed, the same shall be duly intimated to the Union Government and theunion Government shall take steps to issue the notification applying theprovisions of Chapter III to that State/union Territory within two weeks fromthe date of such intimation. " ( 10 ). Learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decisions of thesupreme Court in A. K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 S. C. 710 and Aeltemesh Rein,advocate, Supreme Court of India v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1988 S. C. 1768,for contending that no direction to the Central Government can be issued to bring astatute or a statutory provision into force in a case where the said statute leaves thequestion of bringing the Act or a statutory provision into force at the discretion of thecentral Government. ( 11 ). It may be noted that in A. K. Roy s case (supra) the Supreme Court observedthat the Parliament by leaving to the Central Government to decide as to when thevarious provisions of the 44th Constitution Amendment Act, 1978 should be broughtinto force, could not have intended the Central Government to exercise a kind of vetoover its constituent will by not ever bringing the Amendment or some of itsprovisions into force. The Supreme Court, however, by a majority of three is to twodeclined to issue the mandamus to the Central Government to bring into force thevarious provisions of the said Act, but expressed hope that the Central Governmentwill without further delay bring the 44th Constitution Amendment Act into force. Similarly, in the case of Aeltemesh Rein (supra) the Supreme Court, relying upon A. K. Roy s case (supra), did not issue a direction to the Central Government obliging it tobring Section 30 of the Advocates Act into force. Similarly, in the case of Aeltemesh Rein (supra) the Supreme Court, relying upon A. K. Roy s case (supra), did not issue a direction to the Central Government obliging it tobring Section 30 of the Advocates Act into force. At the same time it must be pointedout that the Supreme Court expressed the view that every discretionary powervested with the executive should be exercised in a just, fair and reasonable manneras that is the essence of the rule of law. ( 12 ). Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that according to thedecisions of the Supreme Court in A. K. Roy (supra) and Aeltemesh Rein (supra) nodirection can ever be issued to the Central Government to bring into force alegislation. I am not persuaded to read the abovejudgments as imposing a total baninissuing an appropriate direction to an unwilling Government to implement themandate of the Parliament by notifying a date for bringing into force the legislation. If the learned Counsel for the respondent is right in his submission, then in that eventthe Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (supra) would not havegiven a direction to the Centred Government to issue the requisite notification forapplying the provisions of Chapter III of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Itappears that there is hardly any possibility of the Delhi Rent Act, 1995, being broughtinto force by the Central Government on its own. This is clearly discernible from theaffidavit of the Central Government dated 8/09/1998. From the affidavit thefollowing position emerges: 1. Central Cabinet decided to enforce the Delhi Rent Act, 1995 with theamendments contained in the note for the Cabinet dated 8/07/1998which means the Central Government is not willing to enforce the Actin its present form. 2. Pursuant to the decision of the Central Government, Rent Controlamendment Bill, 1997 has been introduced in the Parliament. 3. On the constitution of the 12th Lok Sabha, the Central Governmentwas required to take a fresh decision in regard to the Delhi Rentcontrol Bill, 1997, which decision has not been taken. The fact that the Central Government has expressed its inability to enforce the Delhirent Act, 1995, has been brought out in the last paragraph of its affidavit. Thisparagraph summing up the situation states as follows : "4. That in view of the above position. The fact that the Central Government has expressed its inability to enforce the Delhirent Act, 1995, has been brought out in the last paragraph of its affidavit. Thisparagraph summing up the situation states as follows : "4. That in view of the above position. Ministry is not in a position to bring intoforce Delhi Rent Act, 1995 Act XXXIII/95 as assented to by the President ofindia. "( 13 ). The power vested by the S\irliarnent in the Central Government by Section1 (3) of the new Rent Act, which is in the category of the conditional legislation, hasto be exercised by the latter for bringing into force the provisions of the Act. Thecentral Government cannot say that it will not bring the new Rent Act into force orit will bring the same into force after the same is amended by the Parliament. Thecentral Government is bound to implement the Will of the Parliament and cannottake shelter under the plea that it will enforce the new Rent Act only after the sameis amended by the Parliament. As and when the new Rent Act is amended by theparliament, the same would stand modified accordingly. ( 14 ). It is significant to note that the Standing Committee on Urban and Ruraldevelopment (1996-97) presented its report to the Lok Sabha on 22/04/1997. In thisrespect the Committee recommended that the new Rent Act should be notifiedwithout any further delay. In this regard it was stated as follows : "3. 5. 2. More than I year and 8 months have elapsed since Delhi Rent Act, 1995was assented to by the President. Till date the Act has not been notified by thegovernment to be implemented. The Committee note with concern the way thegovernment is dealing with the said Act and recommend the same should benotified without any further delay. " ( 15 ). Despite the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee the new Rentact has not been enforced by the Central Government. Here is a case where thecentral Government is not willing to implement the Will of the people expressedthrough the Parliament. In such a case the Court will have the jurisdiction to issuean appropriate direction to the Central Government to notify the new Rent Act. ( 16 ). Here is a case where thecentral Government is not willing to implement the Will of the people expressedthrough the Parliament. In such a case the Court will have the jurisdiction to issuean appropriate direction to the Central Government to notify the new Rent Act. ( 16 ). In A. K. Roy s case (supra) it was contended that since the Central Governmentfailed to exercise its powers to bring the 44th Constitution Amendment Act, 1978 intoforce within a reasonable time and had delayed its implementation, a directionshould be issued calling upon the Central Government to discharge its duty. Thepetitioner in that case, however, failed to place on record any data to show that theaction of the Central Government in delaying the implementation of the Will of theparliament was actuated by any ulterior motive. In view of this position, the Apexcourt while declining to issue a writ of mandamus held as follows: "delay in implementing the Will of the Parliament can justifiably raise manyan eyebrow, but it is not possible to say on the basis of such data, as has beenlaid before us, that the Central Government is actuated by any ulterior motivein not bringing Section 3 into force. " ( 17 ). The above observations of the Supreme Court do not show that in nocircumstances a prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Centralgovernment to discharge its duty to bring into force the legislation in respect ofwhich power is vested in the Central Government to issue a notification for enforcingits operation would be accepted. In both the cases (A. K. Roy and Aeltemesh Rein),unlike the present case, it was not found by the Court that the Central Governmenthad expressed its inability or refusal to bring into force the legislation. Where thecentral Government refuses to bring into force a legislation a mandamus would liedirecting it to effectuate the Will of the Parliament. The instant case is of refusal ofthe Central Government to bring into force the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) in its present form instead of being simply a case of delay in implementingthe Will of the Parliament. ( 18 ). In view of the above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and the rule ismade absolute. The instant case is of refusal ofthe Central Government to bring into force the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) in its present form instead of being simply a case of delay in implementingthe Will of the Parliament. ( 18 ). In view of the above discussion, the writ petition succeeds and the rule ismade absolute. The respondent-Union of India is directed to bring into force thedelhi Rent Act, 1995 (Act No. 33 of 1995) by issuing an appropriate notificationwithin six weeks from today. In the other writ petitions, namely, CWP Nos. 210/96, 761/96, 83/97,972/97and 1718/98, same direction is issued as has been issued in the instant petition (CWPNo. 1495/97) since they raise the identical question. The writ petition is disposed of.