PUNAMCHANDRA REVASHANKAR JOSHI Vs. RAMJIBHAI MAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 13 of 1962 and Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 1962 was the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 16 of 1959. He had filed a suit against the present opponent in both these revision applications for possession on the ground that it was required bona fide for the personal use of starting a booksellers business in the suit premises. The suit premises were a part of a whole building which the petitioner had purchased sometime before he started the proceedings. After the suit was filed the respondent had also filed a miscellaneous application to determine the standard rent. In the suit also the defendant-respondent had raised the contention that the agreed rent which was Rs. 22/was not the standard rent. In the suit on merits the trial Court decided in favour of the plaintiff. As regards the standard rent the trial Court held that the standard rent was Rs. 8/inclusive of all taxes. As regards the standard rent the same was the finding in the miscellaneous application No. 74 of 1959. The defendant being aggrieved by the finding on merits filed an appeal No. 2 of 1961 and the present petitioner the plaintiff being aggrieved by the order as regards the standard rent filed two proceedings one being appeal No. 13 of 1961 against the order passed as regards the standard rent in the suit and the other was Revision Application No. 9 of 1961 against the order passed in the Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 1959. The learned Assistant Judge allowed appeal No. 2 of 1961 and reversed the trial Courts decree and dismissed the suit. As regards the standard rent in both the proceedings the learned Assistant Judge confirmed the order of the trial Court. Being aggrieved the plaintiff approached this Court and filed three separate proceedings. Civil Revision Application No. 25 of 1962 was filed against the dismissal of his suit by the Assistant Judge reversing the decree of the trial Court. Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 1962 was filed by him against the order of the learned Assistant Judge in the appeal No. 13 of 1961 and Civil Revision Application No. 13 of 1962 against the order as regards the standard rent in Revision Application No. 9 of 1961. I have disposed of the Civil Revision Application No. 25 of 1962 by a separate Judgment. In the two Civil Revision Applications now under consideration the petitioner wants to rely on sub-sec. (2) of sec. 29 of the Bombay Rent Control Act and urges that the Court should enter into evidence to see whether the orders passed by the Assistant Judge under sec. 29(1)(b) were according to law or not. It is contended however on behalf of the respondent that this Court has no jurisdiction to revise the orders passed by the Assistant Judge under the amended sub-sec. (2) of sec. 29 as these orders had been passed before this amendment came into force in 1965. In Civil Revision Application No. 26 of 1962 also the question was agitated but it could be disposed of even on an assumption that this Court had such jurisdiction to decide under the amended sub-sec. (2) of sec. 29. There fore the important question that arises for consideration in these two revision Application is whether the amended sub-sec. (2) of sec. 29 can be held to have retrospective effect so that this Court could assume powers given under the amendment and revise the orders passed by the learned Assistant Judge before the amendment came into effect in respect of the fixation of the standard rent.

(2.) The question arises for consideration under the following facts :-

(3.) Here again there is no discussion as to why sub-clause (iii) of clause (10A)(b) would not be applicable in the present case. With due deference in my view the reasoning is faulty and the conclusion reached was not correct. The correct construction of the amended clauses (10) and the added clause (10A) is as pointed out hereinabove.