Statement & Argument — Should rent fixation be left entirely to landlords and tenants? Arguments: I. Yes, it is the sole right of landlords and any intervention violates Article 21. II. No, a free hand can lead to exploitation and miseries of tenants.

Introduction / Context:
Rent control debates weigh contractual freedom against asymmetric power and housing as a basic need. Strong arguments rely on correct constitutional references and realistic market behavior.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Article 21 protects life and personal liberty; it does not grant a landlord unilateral rent rights.
• Housing markets may feature bargaining imbalances and can enable exploitation without safeguards.
• Public policy often balances freedom of contract with anti-exploitation measures.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I misstates constitutional law and asserts absolute rights, making it weak. Argument II identifies a plausible risk (rent gouging, coercive clauses) that policy may need to address; thus it is strong.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Check legal accuracy: I is flawed in Article 21 usage and overbroad.2) Market reality: II highlights tenant vulnerability, providing a sound policy reason for regulation.

Final Answer:
Only Argument II is strong.