RESHMA KHATWANI Vs. SARAOGI MANSION ESTATE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contest between the landlord and the tenant over the payment of provisional rent has raised an interesting legal issue: whether while determining the provisional rent under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) ct, 1950 (henceforth to be referred to as `the Act', for short), the court has the power to direct the payment of the said rent from the date of filing of the application under Section 6 of the act or not?

(2.) THE appellant is challenging the order dated 9. 12. 2003, passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 8, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has fixed the provisional rent of the shop at Rs. 5,500/- per month and has directed the appellant to pay the said amount to the respondent from 17. 4. 2001, the date of the filing of the suit under Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. G. S. Bapna, the learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that the criteria laid down in Section 6 (3) of the act for fixation of standard rent has been followed by the learned Judge. Secondly, the provisions of Act of 2001 are inapplicable as the application was filed under the act and not under the Act of 2001. Moreover, there is nothing in the act of 2001 to indicate that the said act would have retrospective effect. In the absence of any indication about the retrospective effect to be given to the Act of 2001, the court can not apply the said act retrospectively. Thirdly, the appellant had filed only affidavits and did not file any Valuer's Report. ON the other hand, the respondent had not only filed his affidavit, but had also filed a Valuer's Report prepared by Mr. Vinay Kumar Soni, an approved valuer with the Finance Department of the Government of India. As it was a case of one affidavit versus the other affidavit, the court was justified in considering the Valuer's Report filed by the respondent. Hence, the Order is legally based on the said Report. Lastly, he has argued that Sections 6 and 7 of the Act are supplementary to each other. Not only Section 6 (3) has to be read into Section 7, but also Section 6 (5) has to be read into Section 7. If Section 6 (5) is read into Section 7, then the Court does not have the power to direct retrospective payment of the provisional rent. He further argued that the landlord should not suffer at the hands of the court, merely because the court has not decided the provisional rent immediately. Hence, the power to direct retrospective payment of the provisional rent has to be read impliedly into Section 7 of the Act.