RAM LAL Vs. SUMITRAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the tenant and the respondent is the landlady She had brought a suit for eviction of the appellant which was decreed by the trial court & also by the 1st appellate court. Courts below have held that shop was required by the respondent for reconstruction and such reconstruction is for the public benefit The suit was deceided by the Courts below under the provisions of Houses & Shops Rent Control Act of 1956.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this second appeal, section 13 of the Houses & Shops Rent Control Act was amended by Act No; XVt of 1978. After sub -section 2 of section 13 of the principal Act. the following sub -section was inserted : "Where the landlord obtains a decree for ejectment in terms of clause (h) of sub -section (1) of section 11 and the tenant is ejected on the ground that the house or shop is required by him for building or rebuilding, the tenant thereof shall have first right to tenancy; Provided that the tenant shall pay the rent at market rates notwithstanding anything contained in section." 8

(3.) THE arguments advanced in this case relate to the pro -spectivity and retrospectivity of the aforesaid amendment to the Rent Control Act. M/S T. S Thakur & Nanda appearing for the appellant contend that the provisions of sections 13 as amended in 1978 are retrospective & tenant consequently has a right of re -entry in the shop after it is reconstructed notwithstanding the decree passed by the courts below against the tenant for eviction. Mr. Sudhan appearing for the respondent has contended that the amendment is prospective & would operate from 9 -5 -1987, the day it received the assent of the Governor and was published for general information. It is contended that it will not be retrospective & will not apply to the present suit. On facts, findings of the courts below are not assailed. Therefore, the only question which is to be determined in this appeal is whether the amended provisions of section 13 of the Houses & Shops Rent Control Act is retrospective or it is prospective. If it is prospective, then the appllants appeal is to be dismissed because that is concluded by finding of fact if it is held to be retrospective, than the tenants right to tenancy is to be upheld provided tenant is ready to pay rent at market rate notwithstanding anything contained in section 8 of the Houses & Shops Rent Control Act. It is contended by Mr. Nanda appearing for the appellant that the Rent Control Act being a beneficial piece of legislation is to protect the interests of the tenants and any amendment made in the said legislation is to apply retrospectively. It is contended that section 11 of the Houses & Shops Rent Control Act contains an obstanite clause which protects the eviction of the tenants notwithstanding anything contrary in any, other Act or law or order or decree of any court, unless grounds mentioned in the said section are restored to. In other words it would mean that tenant can be evicted only on the grounds mentioned in section 11 and on no other ground. Therefore to make sec. 11 meaningfull, amendment of section 13 is to be held retrospective otherwise section 11 will become redundent.