JUDGMENT Desai, C.J.
1. The question raised before us in this appeal is whether Section 1-A introduced in the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, by Second Amendment Act No. 9 of 1961 hits Article 14 of the Constitution or not. The Act as originally enacted in 1947 controlled letting of all existing and future houses The letting was controlled by placing restrictions upon landlord's powers to let out houses, to enhance rent and to eject tenants Subsequently it was found by the State that this control prevented persons from constructing new houses because on account of it they did not expect to make as such profit from the construction as they could from other investments. Hence the Legislature enacted Act No. 9 of 1951; in the Statement of Objects and Reasons it was expressly stated that the working of the Act has shown that "control over new buildings has retarded the construction of new buildings". Section 1-A was added laying down that the Act would not apply to buildings under construction, or constructed after 1-1-1951. What was contended by Sri Barman is that this reason that controlling, new houses retarded the construction of new houses has nothing to do with the question whether whatever new houses are constructed should be controlled or not. The necessity of controlling the letting of new houses is exactly the same as that controlling the letting of old houses; the necessity has not undergone any change justifying withdrawal of the control of letting of new houses.
2. Therefore, it was contended that there was no rational basis for differentiating new houses from old houses and removing the former from the controls imposed by the Act. That there is such a necessity, or no necessity, for controlling the letting of new houses is not the sole ground that would justify division of houses into old houses and new houses. Whether the letting should be controlled or not depends not only upon the necessity of controls but also upon the effect of controls. In respect of houses already constructed there is no question of effect of controls upon construction; this question can arise in its very nature only in respect of new houses i.e houses to be constructed in future. The main object behind the Act is to provide accommodation to the needy and the greater the number of houses the more is the object served. The Act should, therefore, permit construction of new houses and not discourage it. The question whether the construction of houses should be permitted or discouraged can arise only in respect of new houses and cannot arise in respect of old or existing houses.
In respect of new houses there is to be considered not only the necessity of controlling their letting but also the effect of controls upon their construction. Since the construction of new houses should not be discouraged there is justification for not con trolling their letting. As in respect of new houses there arises not only the question of the need of controls but also the question of not discouraging their construction, this additional fact to be considered differentiates them from old houses and justifies removing them from the controls imposed under the Act Therefore, it cannot be said that the provision contained in Section 1-A hits Article 14, and we dismiss this special appeal summarily