BALBEER KUMAR JAIN Vs. TRIPTI KUMAR KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOLLOWING common question of law arises in these four appeals:- " Whether the proceedings for fixation of standard rent under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001, would be governed by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (for short the old Act) or by the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (New Act) which came into force w. e. f. 1. 4. 03. ?"

(2.) CIVIL First Appeal Nos. 294/03, and 373/2003, respectively filed by tenants and landlord are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29. 5. 2003, passed in CIVIL Suit No. 28/2000, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, while dismissing the suit for eviction fixed Rs. 2500/- per month as standard rent under Section 6 of the Old Act. The tenants have come against the order of fixation of standard rent while the landlord has filed the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for eviction as well as fixation of standard rent at lower side.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. R. K. Agarwal appearing for the tenants contended that the repeal of the Old Act is accompanied by the New Act on the same subject and as such the provisions of the New Act will apply as the New Act indicates different intentions with regard to the right of the landlord for increase in rent; that the provisions of the New Act will have to be looked into for the purposes of determining the standard rent; that a bare reading of Section 6 of the New Act reveals that the Legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the revision of rent; that the impugned order was passed after the New Act came into force and no decree/order inconsistent with the provisions of the New Act could be passed after it came into force; that a bare perusal of the Section 32 of the New Act reveals that only the forum and procedure with regard to the pending cases have been saved and the quantum or the rate of increase in the rent has not been saved; that the trial court committed manifest error of law in not adverting to the non-obstante clause as contained in Section 6 of the New Act as the intention of the Legislature is manifest from the aforesaid non-obstante clause; that the rent after commencement of the New Act can be revised only in accordance with the formula indicated in Section 6 of the New Act and not otherwise; that Section 29 of the New Rent Control Act relating to the overriding effect was not taken into consideration by the trial court as the said Section stipulates in unambiguous terms that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act and it leaves no room for any doubt that though the pending cases were to be decided by courts in which they were pending but no decree inconsistent with the provisions of the New Act could be passed and the impugned decree/orders being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the New Act are bad in law; that it could not be the legislative intent that for a suit/proceeding filed immediately before the commencement of the New Act for fixation of standard rent and another filed immediately after the commencement of the New Act but both decided after the commencement of the New Act for the same premises, would have determination of different quantum of rent and to remove such incompatibility, Section 29 was inserted in the New Act and thus Section 6 of the New Act would be applicable to all pending cases for determination of standard rent. He placed reliance upon following judgments:- (1) Manphul Singh Sharma vs. Ahmedi Begum (1), (2) Gajraj Singh and Others vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others (2), (3) Hungerfort Investment Trust Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) vs. Haridas Mundhra and Others (3), (4) Thyseen Stahlunion Gmbh vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (4), (5) State of Punjab vs. Mohar Singh Pratap Singh (5), (6) Panna Lal Bansilal Pitti and Others vs. State of A. P. & Anr. (6), (7) Rameshwar Prasad and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (7), and (8) Bhatia International vs. Bulk Trading S. A. and Another