there does number appear to have been any specification of the terms of the tenancy and no question as to such terms arises in this case.
before the district judge and the high companyrt the petitioner bad companytended that misri lal was a more suitable tenant than respondent number 1.
but such companytention was rejected.
respondent number 2 selected respondent number 1 as the person to whom the house should be let by the petitioner.
the district judge affirmed the decision of respondent number 2.
k. venkataranga ayengar and s. j. s. fernandez for the petitioner.
having failed in the high companyrt he has number challenged the act itself by the present petition.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 71 of 1958.
the petitioner was dissatisfied with this decision as he wanted that the premises should be let to misri lal and appealed to the district judge under s. 15 of the act.
the petitioner had a building in respect of which he had made some sort of arrangement with one misri lal for the making of certain alterations in it and for letting it thereafter to him for the purpose of a boarding house.
32 of the companystitution of india for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
thereupon respondent number 2 companysidered applications for the tenancy of the house of which there were two.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkar j. this petition under art.
5 of that article.
writ petition under art.
one was from misri lal mentioned above and the other was from respondent number 1 who was a private indivi dual carrying on business of a boarding house keeper.
350 per month which was the rent demanded by the petitioner.
r. l. iyengar for respondent number 1.
gopalakrishnan and t. m. sen for the respondent number 2.
the petitioner for whom a tenant had been selected under this provision challenges its validity on the ground that it puts an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental right to property under art.
the petitioner then went up in revision to the high companyrt under s. 17 of the act but the high companyrt refused to interfere.
he fixed the rent at rs.
19 1 f of the constitution and is outside the protection of el.
he later gave a numberice as required by s. 3 2 a of the act to respondent number 2 the companytroller who had the authority under s. 3 3 a to select a tenant that the house had become vacant.
april 17.
