SURRINDER MOHAN Vs. DHARAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner acquired a shop from the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- by virtue of a rent deed executed on 10-1-1961. This rent was enhanced to Rs. 50/- per month vide another rent deed dated 13-1-1964, and finally to Rs. 80/- per month vide rent deed dated 1-9-1966. He made an application against the first respondent for fixation of fair rent before Rent Controller, Jammu. During the pendency of this application, the shop on family partition fell to the share of the second respondent who too was made a party to it. In the application urged that the rent was highly exorbitant and every time its enhancement was preceded by a notice for ejectment. The case of the respondent on the other hand was that the rent was enhanced not under any threat or coercion but by mutual agreement of the parties, as the respondent had to spend huge amounts, time and again, on effecting improvements to the shop at the behest of the petitioner. It was further pleaded that considering the business activity in the area (Link Road. Jammu) where the shop was situated Rs. 80/- per month was quite a reasonable rent.

(2.) The shop having been admittedly constructed after the last day of Chet 2005 Bk., the Rent Controller, on consideration of the evidence led by the parties, fixed the fair rent at Rs. 70/-per month under Clause (f) of Section 8 of J. and K. Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. 1966, hereinafter the Act, vide his order dated 10-1-1974. Both the parties feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, challenged the same by way of cross-appeals in the court of District Judge, Jammu. Before the District Judge it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that Schedule A to the Act having been amended during the pendeacy of these proceedings vide Act No. 21 of 1972 and the words and figures "31st December 1964" substituted for the words and figures "1st Baisakh 1998" in Clause (b) of Para 1 of the Schedule, fair rent of the shop had to be fixed under Schedule A and not under Clause (f) of Section 8, as had been done by the Rent Controller. This contention did not find favour with the District Judge, as in his opinion, the amending Act was not retroactive in operation and had, therefore, no application to pending proceedings. For holding so, he drew support from, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mulak Raj v. Kapoor Chand, 1970 J & K LR 54 and on reappraisal of the evidence recorded by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 10-10-1974 held that Rs. 80/- per month was the fair rent which had, on the pleadings of the parties to be determined in accordance with the mode provided in Clause (f) of Section 8. It is this order which has been assailed in this revision petition.

(3.) This petition came up for arguments before me even earlier. At that time it was canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that amending Act No. 21 of 1972 was retrospective in its application and that the view taken by this court in Mulakraj's case (supra) needed re-consideration. I formulated a question : 'is amending Act No. 21 of 1972, retrospective in its operation'? and referred the same to a larger Bench. A Full Bench was constituted to answer the same. .Before the Full Bench, however, it was conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that the amending Act was not retrospective but was only prospective in operation. Consequently, the Full Bench returned the question un-answered vide its order dated 27-2-1980. I had, therefore, to pick up the threads where I had left them at the time of making the reference. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties once again.