MUKANDI Vs. GHANSHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point referred to the Full Bench in the case is as follows: "are the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Rents Control Act, 1954, retrospective. Do they apply to arrears of rent that have fallen due prior to the enactment of the Act but are being realised or sued for after the Act ?"

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant did not put in appearance and hence we would not have the advantage of his argumentation. It is a settled law that a statute is to have prospective operation only unless there is anything in the context itself which may give it a retrospective effect. THE decisions reported in A. I. R. 1954, Patna 596 and A. I. R. 1949, Bombay 210 are the direct authority on the point. THE only question that remains to be examined by us is as to whether there is anything in the provisions of the Act which suggest that the legislature intended to give it a retrospective effect This is an Act to provide for the fixation of maximum rents recoverable by landholders from their tenants in order that excessive rents may not be exacted from them. THE term "case rent" is defined as meaning "whether is payable exclusively in case on cannot of the use or occupation of agricultural land or on account of any right in such land". Sec. 3 of the Act lays down that notwithstanding any custom, usage of practice to the contrary or anything contained in any law, enactment, rule, decree, order, agreement or instrument, no landholder shall recover or be deemed entitled to recover as cash rent for any holding in an area to which this Act for the time being applies, an amount exceeding twice the land revenue assessed on such holding or the case rent fixed under sec. 4 of this Act. THE proviso to this section makes an exception in favour of windows, minors etc. which is not material for purposes of this reference. Sec. 6 relates to refund of excess rent and provides that all rents paid in excess of the maximum rent prescribed under this Act shall be recovered by the tenant from the landholder on an application being made by the tenant to the Tehsildar in this behalf for recovery of the same. Thus there is nothing in any of the provisions of this Act to suggest that it was intended by the legislature to regulate the recovery of areas of rent Rent of a holding becomes payable on a day that may be fixed in that behalf either by mutual agreement or by a custom prevailing in the locality. If the rent is not paid on the day fixed for payment, it becomes in area on the day following that date. It was open to the legislature to say that the recovery of areas of rent also will be governed by this Act. THEre is nothing in the Act, therefore, to show that the Act was intended to have a retrospective effect so as to apply to areas of rent that had fallen due before but are being sued for or are to be realised after the enforcement of the Act.