TIRATH RAM Vs. MALWA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the Defendants' second appeal directed against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Kapurthala. The Respondents have put in cross -objections. Both the appeal and the cross -objections will be disposed of by one order.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs' allegations were that the Defendants firm had rented a shop from them for a period of one year from 1 -1 -1998 Samvat, that they agreed to pay yearly rent of Rs. 75/ -, that it was further agreed that if the shop was not vacated after the expiry of the year i.e. 30 -12 -1998 Samvat, the rent charged would be Rs. 150/ - per annum and that the Defendants had neither paid any rent nor had acated the shop. On these allegations the plain -tiffs prayed, first for the ejectment of the Defendants from the shop and secondly for Rs. 44/ - on account of rent. It may here be mentioned that the rate at which the Plaintiffs claimed the arrears of rent was Rs. 150/ - per annum for 1999 and Rs. 300/ - per annum from 1 -1 -2000 to 23 -4 -2002, on the ground that there was a general rise of rent in the locality in 'which the Plaintiffs' shop was situate. The suit was instituted on 30 -4 -2002 Samvat. The Defendants resisted the suit on several grounds. The following issues were framed by the trial court.

(3.) COUNSEL was constrained to concede that his plea was not borne out by any specific provision of the Ordinance, but he argued that the intention of the frames of the Ordinance as gathered from the different sections thereof was that if rent was once fixed it could neither be decreased or increased except Plaintiff Section 4 which empowers the Controller to fix fair rent. He also referred us to Section 6 which in his opinion barfed a suit for enhanced rent. In my opinion, important as the question raised by counsel is, it is not necessary to express an opinion thereon in this case, because it is not hit by the Ordinance, I have already observed that the tenancy in this case began on 1 -1 -1998 and the term relating to the enhanced rate was to take effect from 1 -1 -1999. The suit was instituted on 30 -4 -2002. The period for which the rent could be recovered, i.e., three years immediately preceding the suit extended from 30 -4 -1999.. to 29 -4 -2002. The Ordinance came into force on 12 -5 -1949 which corresponds to 31 -1 -2006 i.e., more than three years and a half after the suit. It is correct that the suit was Still pending in the trial court, but it is well recognised principle of interpretation that a statute cannot have retrospective effect unless it contains an express provision to this effect and it cannot even apply to pending suits, unless it relates to procedure, which is not the case with this Ordinance. Counsel refers us to the decision of the Madras High Court in - 'A. Mosses Pillai v. M.K. Govindan', : AIR 1948 Mad 346 (A), in which it was laid down that Clause 7(a), Madras House Rent Control Order, affected the rights created by contracts even though they were entered into before the Order. Now the facts of that case were quite different from those of the present one and even the language of Section 7 which came up for consideration was different. The section said.