MAN SINGH PATEL Vs. PHOOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for determination in Civil Revision 682-D of 1965 and Civil Revision 685-D of 1965 is whether in view of section 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59) of 1958, section 15 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Ast 88) of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Act") or section 20 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59) of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act ) will apply to the facts of the cases. The new Act came into force on 9th of February, 1959, and section 57 of the same reads as follows:

(2.) On a plain reading of the at ore said provisions of law it is obvious that notwithstanding repeal of the old Act all suits or proceedings pending on the commencement of the new Act were directed to be continued and disposed of in accordance with the previsions of the old Act as if the said Act had continued to be inforce and new Act had not been passed. The first proviso carved out an exception to the said provision in respect of a suit or a proceeding for fixation of standard lent or for eviction of a tenant, in which case the court or authority concerned is required to have regard to the provisions of the new Act. It is only in respect of the matters relating to fixation of standard rent or eviction of the tenant that the provisions of the new Act were directed to apply, and with regard to other matters pending under the Act application of the provisions of the new Act was cot called for.

(3.) The present case before me does not pertain to fixation of standard rent or eviction of a tenant, but it deals with the working out of the rights of the landlord and tenant in pursuance of an order of eviction passed by the High Court on 15th March, 1961, in the suit, and the present action relates to dispossession of the landlord and restoration of the possession of the premises to the tenant It is significant that the objection based on the applicability of section 57 of the new Act had not been raised in the previous proceedings, although they were admittedly pending on the date of the commencement of the new Act and the pending suit was decided by the trial court or 19th of March. 1989, by the lower appellate court on 15th December, 19 9 and by the High Court on 15th March. 1961. Had the parties felt that the provisions of the new Act made slight modifications or changes in the relevant provisions of the old Act and were beneficial to them, their objection might have had some validity then but the same is of absolutely no avail at the stage of the present proceedings.