MOHABAT SINGH Vs. MAGHRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference by a Division Bench of the Board arises out of an appeal filed by the defendants against the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 14-4-1955 in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for Svt. 2006, 2007 and 2008 which was decreed against them by the trial court and upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur. The reference has been worded as below: "whether sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating Act, 1951 is applicable to rents which fell due prior to the passing of this Act. "

(2.) THE learned counsel for the parties addressed the court at length on the point under reference. We have also carefully perused the record of the case. THE learned counsel for the appellants has argued that although the respondents filed the suit for arrears of produce rent which fell due prior to the passing of the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulation Act, 1951, yet in view of sec. 4 of the Act they were not entitled to recover as produce rent a portion exceeding one-sixth of the gross produce. It was also urged that this enactment was passed by the legislature with a view to setting at rest all disputes respecting the share recoverable by landholders as produce rent and that the maximum extent of such share was fixed as one-sixth of the gross produce to give relief to the tenants, He therefore emphasised that this act was retrospective in effect and to use the wordings of sec. 4 of the Act 'notwithstanding any custom usage or practice to the contrary or anything contained in any law, enactment, rule order or instrument,' the respondents were not entitled to recover any thing more than l/6of the produce. THE learned counsel for the respondent repelled this contention and argued that there is no provision in the Act to suggest that the legislature expressly or by implication desired that this Act should be given a retrospective effect and unless the legislature itself so directs either express sly or by necessary implication, an Act cannot be held to have a retrospective effect. It is also urged that the claim of the respondents for arrears of produce rent was based on an agreement executed by the appellant and that it was rightly decreed by both the lower courts on the basis of the rights which accrued to the respondents prior to the passing of the Act.