JUDGMENT - D.K. DESHMUKH, J.:---These petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the tenants of two houses; one called Shri Satsang Bhavan and the other Ramanand Ramprasad Bhartiya Dharmashala. The house Shri Satsang Bhavan is owned by the Public Trust viz. Shri Satsang Bhavan. The other house viz. Ramanand Ramprasad Bhartiya Dharmashala is owned by the Public Trust viz. Ramanand Ramprasad Bhartiya Dharmashala. Admitted position is that the petitioners in these petitions are the tenants of these two public trusts. Further admitted position is that the State Government has, in exercise of it's power under Clause 30 of C.P. Berar Letting of Premises and the Rent Control Order, 1949 exempted above named two houses from the provisions of the Rent Control Order. The question that arises for our consideration in these petitions are identical and, therefore, all these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by common order. 2. According to the petitioners, the orders were issued by the State under Clause 30 of the Rent Control Order exemption two houses referred to above from the provisions of the Rent Control Order at the instance of the landlords and without following the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioners, while exercising the power under Clause 30, it is necessary for the State Government to observe the principles of natural justice. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. There is no dispute that the notifications which are impugned in these petitions were issued at the instance of the landlords and that in issuing the notifications, the principles of natural justice were not observed. 3. Thus, the only question that is to be considered in the present petitions is whether while exercising power under Clause 30, exempting certain houses from the provisions of the Rent Control Order, it is necessary for the State Government to comply with the principles of natural justice. Clause 30 of the Rent Control Order reads as under : “Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, the State Government may, by a notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any premises or class of premises or any person or class of persons from all or any of the provisions of this order.” It is undoubtedly true that Clause 30 is a piece of conditional legislation. However, now it is an established law that the conditional legislation can be of three categories; (i) When the legislature has enacted the statute, the entire structure of the legislation is ready. However, it's applicability to a given area is left to the subjective satisfaction of the delegate who on being satisfied about the existing conditions when the statute can be brought into force, exercises power and bring the statute in force as a delegate of the legislations; (ii) Where the enactment has not only be enacted by the legislature but has also been brought into force, the power is conferred on the delegate to partially withdraw from the operation of the statute in a given area or in given cases which are admittedly governed by the statute. In these categories of cases, the delegate exercises power on being subjectively satisfied about the existence of the conditions necessary for exercise of the power delegated to the delegate by the legislation; (iii) When the power is conferred on the delegate by the legislation upon satisfaction of the delegate of objective facts placed by one class of persons seeking benefits of such an exercise, with a view to deprive the rival class of persons who otherwise may have already been getting statutory benefits under the Act and who are likely to loose existing benefits because of the exercise of such power by the delegate, the principal distinguishing feature in these three categories is that in first two categories the satisfaction of the delegate is a subjective satisfaction whereas in the third category, it is an objective satisfaction of the delegate. 4. The case of the petitioner in the present case is that the Clause 30 of the Rent Control Order belongs to the third category. The power of the State Government under Clause 30 to grant exemption from the provisions of the Rent Control Order, any premises or class of premises or any person or class of persons, obviously has to be exercised keeping in view the policy of the Rent Control Order and the Rent Control Act under which the Rent Control Order has been enacted. The principal purpose of the Rent Control Act is to protect the tenants against the eviction by the landlords without any reason. The principal purpose of the Rent Control Act is to protect the tenants against the eviction by the landlords without any reason. Thus, the purpose of enacting the Rent Control Act and the Rent Control Order is to confer protection on the tenants of the houses. It undoubtedly is a valuable right created in favour of the tenants. Clause 30 of the Rent Control Order confers on the State a drastic power to deprive a tenant of this protection which is already conferred on him. Therefore, though Clause 30 itself may not be laying down the condition of satisfaction of which the power under Clause 30 can be exercised, nevertheless the power will have to be exercised by the State Government keeping in view the policy and purpose of the Rent Control Act and the Rent Control Order framed thereunder. Therefore, it cannot be said that power under Clause 30 can be exercised by the State Government on the basis of its objective satisfaction. The satisfaction of the State Government will have to be objective. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the State Government has exercised it's power under Clause 30 at the instance of the landlords obviously on the basis of the informations supplied by the landlords. The result of exercise of the power was to deprive the tenants of the protection afforded to their tenancy by the Act under the Rent Control Order. Therefore, before recording its objective satisfaction that the two houses referred to above are to be excluded from the provisions of the Rent Control Order, the State Government was under an obligation to consider not only the material placed by the landlords who were seeking an order of exemption but the tenants were also entitled to an opportunity to counter the material that was placed by the landlords before the Government as also to place additional material from their point of view before the State Government. The State Government by issuing notification in the present case has deprived the petitioners tenants of the protection available to them under the Rent Control Order and that has been done without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The State Government by issuing notification in the present case has deprived the petitioners tenants of the protection available to them under the Rent Control Order and that has been done without giving them an opportunity of being heard. In our opinion, therefore, the State Government could not have exercised it's power under section 30 without observing the principles of natural justice without making available to the tenants the material placed by the landlords before the State Government and giving them an opportunity to counter that material as also to place material before the State Government which from their point of view was necessary to be considered by the State Government. We find support for this view in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Tamil Nadu v. Sabanayagam and another)1, reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 344. 5. The State Government can exercise that power for valid reasons. The State Government need not be obliged to disclose the reasons in it's order granting exemption but when the exercise of that power is challenged before the Court, it will be obliged to disclose before the Court the material that was taken into consideration by the State Government for exercise of that power, as also the reasons that weighed with the State Government for exercise of that power. There is a specific challenge raised in these petitions that the power has been exercised by the State Government without any valid reason. Perusal of the return filed by the State Government, however, shows that the State Government has chosen not to disclose either the material on the basis of which the power has been exercised nor the reasons that weighed with the State Government for exercising that power. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of (Chintamani Chandramani v. M.P.)2, 1994 M.P.L.J. 597 . Perusal of that judgment shows that the M.P. High Court was considering the exercise of power by the State Government of granting exemption from the provisions of the Act conferred on the State Government by the Act itself. Perusal of that judgment shows that the M.P. High Court was considering the exercise of power by the State Government of granting exemption from the provisions of the Act conferred on the State Government by the Act itself. The Division Bench of the M.P. High Court relying on the several judgments of the Supreme Court has said that the State Government has to exercise that power in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is now certain that the drastic power conferred on the executive which has the result of withdrawing the benefits which have already been extended to the citizens, has to be exercised fairly and the principles of fair play have to be observed. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the State Government has granted exemption to two houses which are owned by the public trust. It is nobody's case that the houses owned by all the public trusts have been exempted or that it is the policy of the State Government to grant such exemption to all the houses owned by the public trusts. Two houses owned by two public trusts have been exempted from the provisions of the Rent Control Order and for doing so, the State Government has neither disclosed the material on the basis of which the power was exercised nor has the State Government chosen to disclose the reasons which weighed with it for granting exemption. In our opinion, therefore, the notifications which are impugned in these petitions are invalid and, therefore, the notification dated 12th September, 1988 issued by the State Government granting exemption to the houses known Shri Satsang Bhavan from the provisions of the Rent Control Order as also the Notification dated 22-2-1989 issued by the State Government granting exemption to the house known Ramanand Ramprasad Bhartiya Dharmashala from the provisions of the Rent Control Order are quashed and set aside. 7. Rule made absolute accordingly with costs. Order accordingly. -----