SHRI JHABAR MAL CHOKHANI Vs. SHRI JINENDRA PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE five petitions (Civil Revision 612 -D of 1960, Civil Revision 613 -D of 1960, Civil Revision 287 -D of 1961, Civil Revision 358 -D of 1961 and Civil Revision No. 135 -D of 1962) arise out of five suit for the eviction of tenants from certain premises brought under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. While the suits were pending in the trial Court, that Act was repealed and replaced by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. One question, therefore, which arose in these cases, was about the extent to which the provisions of the new Act were to apply: and, because there was some difficulty about understanding the meaning of Section 57 of the new Act which had directed the repeal of the previous Act with certain savings, the learned Single Judges, who first dealt with these revision petitions, felt that a more authoritative opinion of a larger Bench was necessary and in this manner these petitions have come before us.

(2.) THE controversy is about the interpretation of Section 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and that is the only question which has been argued before us, it being understood that after the decision of this question these revision petitions can on the other matters be settled by a Single Bench.

(3.) THREE views about the meaning of Section 57 have been put forward before us. The first is that suits for eviction filed under the previous Act of 1952 must be settled in accordance with the provisions of that Act and the provisions of the new Act of 1958 must be ignored. The second view is that as far as eviction suits are concerned, the the provisions of the new Act of 1951 alone are to govern such suits and the provisions of the previous Act of 1952 must be ignored. The third view is that in substance the provisions applicable to such eviction suits are the provisions of the previous Act of 1952, but, while applying those provisions, the court must also take into consideration the provisions of the new Act of 1958, but the Court is not bound by the new provisions. To amplify this view, it is said that if the conflict between the old and the new provisions be serious or irreconcilable, then the new provisions should be ignored but where there is no conflict in substance and the new Act has merely explained the old provisions or slightly modified them without substantially affecting any right, then reasonable assistance may be sought from the new provisions in understanding and applying the old ones. That, of course, sounds somewhat vague and imprecise, but that, it is said, is intentionally so left by the Legislature which has deliberately used the expression "shall have regard to" in the proviso.