A MUKHERJEE COMPANY Vs. COVENTRY METALS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contest between the landlord, the appellant before us and the tenant, the respondent before us, over the fixation of the provisional rent, has brought the parties before this court. Vide Order dated 18. 7. 2003, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, the learned Judge has fixed the provisional rent of the building at the rate of Rs. 7000/- per month-- a provisional rent which is too little according to the appellant.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1 was a partnership firm which owned a "pital Factory" ( a brass factory) situated on the Jhotwara Road in Jaipur. THE said firm manufactured semis of Non-ferrous metals. Subsequently, the said firm was converted into private limited company by the name of Coventry Metals (Rajasthan) P. Ltd. In this Company the ex- partners of Appellant No. 1 had also become Directors and share holders of the defendant respondent Company. THErefore, the Appellants had let out the "pital Factory", on 1. 3. 1970 to the defendant Company at a nominal rent of Rs. 1, 050/- per month. Subsequently, a registered lease deed was executed on 23. 1. 1972. THE suit premises were let out for a period of twenty-two years, which expired on 28. 2. 1992. Although, the defendant company had closed down the manufacturing process, but due to the nominal rental being paid by them for a large area of 48,816 sq. feet. , the defendant company did not hand over the premises to the appellants. On 18. 7. 2000, the appellants filed a suit for fixation of standard rent on the ground that the rental value in the area had increased phenomenally, and the standard rent needed to be determined. In order to buttress their case, the appellants had produced a number of lease deeds. On the other hand, the defendant respondents had filed their written statements and had denied the appellants' averments. After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge has determined the provisional rent as aforementioned. Thus, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) SECTION 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 (henceforth, to be referred to as 'the Act of 1955', for short) deals with the consequence of repeal of a State Act and states as under: Effect of Repeal-- (1) Where any Rajasthan law repeals any enactment hitherto made or thereafter to be made then unless a different intention appeals the repeal shall not-- a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or d) affect any fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred n respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, fine penalty , forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment, may be imposed, as if the repealing law had not been passed. 2) the provisions of this section shall also apply upon the expiry of withdrawal of any Rajasthan law [ as if such law had not expired or, as the case may be, had not been withdrawn]: Provided that the provision contained in clause (a) of sub- section (1) shall not apply.