NIRMALJIT Vs. BHARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision raises an important question as to the interprctation of Section 3(c) as inserted by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, (for short, the Amendment Act) That question arose before Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.N. Goswami in the aforesaid revision. He, by his order dated 9 1.19K9, referred the question to be answered authoritatively by the Division Bench of this Court. The question that arose before him was as to whether the Amendment Act applies to the pendicg proceedings and according to him as the question would arise in a number of pending cases before this court as well as before the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority, so for deciding the question authoritatively, reference was made by him for deciding the said question by the Division Bench.

(2.) We may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the present reference.

(3.) The petitioner in this petition, Mrs. Nirmaljeet Arora let out the premises in question to the respondent on 14.7.80 at a rental of Rs. 5000.00 per month for a period of 3 years. On 18.2.1985, the petitioner filed a petition filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1 )(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) against the respondent. The said petition after trial was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Delhi, On 7.3. 1987. It was found that the petitioner acquired a rented premises being M-137, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, and the need of the petitioner has extinguished. Aggrieved from the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed thin revision petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Rent Act, on 26 5.1987. The respondents filed anapplication being CM. 2892/88 on 2.12.88, raising a plea that a new clause (c) has been added to Section 3 of the Rent Act, by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 198X which lays down that the Act shall not apply to any premises whether residential or not whose monthly nt exceeds Rs. 3,500.00 per month. In view of the above amendment, the premises in question were not covered by the provisions of Rent Act, 1958, as the agreed rent was more than Rs. 3,500.00 . The Amendment baa come into effect from 1.12.88 and so the revision was not maintainable. Areplytothe said application was filed on 5.12.88 in which the plea raised in the application was stated to be untenable and it wai submitted that added provision section 3(c) would not apply to the pending proceedings. It is under these circumstances that the question arose before the learned Judge who has referred the question to be answered by the Division Bench.