Back
1991 Supreme(Del) 51
High Court Of Delhi
NIRMALJIT ARORA - Appellant
Versus
BHARAT STEEL TABES LIMITED - Respondent
Civil 470 of 1987
Decided On : 01/25/1991
ALOK KUMAR, ANUP BAGHAI, R.K.MAKHIJA, S.N.MARVAH, SANJIV SINDHVANI, V.K.Makhija
Headnote:DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - Section 3(c) inserted by Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1958 — Whether amendment applies to pending proceedings — No express word in Section 3(c) giving provision retrospective effect — Only prospective in character and has no retrospective operation — Not applicable to pending actions and proceedings — Simply a change of forum — Deprives tenants the benefits and protection conferred on them by Rent Act.
HELD :
There are no express words in Section 3(c) giving this provision retrospective effect. Clause (f) has been added w.e.f. 1-12-1988. It will have operation from that date. It would be considered to be law on the statute book on 1-12-1988. As already stated, there is no deeming clause in the amending Section 2. The absence of the deeming clause also manifest the intention of the legislature that the Legislature did not want to give retrospective effect to the insertion of Clause (c) in Section 3. It was easy for the legislature to have stated in Section 2 of the Amending Act that the clause shall always be deemed to have been inserted. Had there been such a language employed in Section 2, Section 3(c) would have been given retrospective operation. Besides the absence of deeming provision, even in the language of Section 3(c), there is nothing from which it can be said that Section 3(c) would apply from before 1.12.1988 i.e. even to pending cases. This knowledge can be attributed to the legislature that thousands and thousands of matters are pending at various stages under the Rent Act. If the Legislature intended to have such a serious and grave consequence to follow, that all proceedings should terminate under the Rent Act, it would not have rest contended by simply making a provision of insertion after the proviso to Clause (b) of Section 3. It would have categorically provided that the provisions of Clause 3 (c) shall apply to all pending actions and proceedings. From the objects of the amending Act as well, it cannot be found that such were the intentions of the Legislature so as to give retrospective effect to Section 3(c). Having regard to the rule of interpretation of statutes, as considered and in the light of the provision contained in Section 3(c) and in the light of the amending Section 2 of the amending Act, and having regard to the consequences which would follow, if Section 3(c) is given retrospective effect, which could not have been intended by the Legislature, we are clearly and firmly of the opinion that Section 3(c) is only prospective in character and has no retrospective operation, and as such, it will not apply to the pending actions and proceedings. The pending actions and proceedings shall continue to be governed by the Rent Act as if in respect of the pending matters.
Section 3 (c) is not simply a provision of change of forum as contended by Shri Marwaha, learned counsel for the respondent. By non-application of the Rent Act to the premises described under Section 3(c), the tenant of such premises have been deprived of the benefits and protection conferred on them by the provisions of the Rent Act like fixation of standard rent and protection against eviction. Change of forum is also the consequence of the non-application of the Act. If the law would have been a law relating to change of forum only, the pending cases could be dealt with by the new forum according to the Rent Act. But here the provision under Section 3(c) is that the Rent Act shall have no application. So, it is not a law whereby simply change of forum is effected.
Interpretation of Statutes — Laws are generally prospective in character — Unless there are express words in statute that law is retrospective in character.
From the case law considered above that the rule of construction or interpretation is very well settled and well established that laws generally are prospective in character more particularly, laws affecting vested or substantive rights or laws creating new liabilities or imposing new disabilities, unless there are express words in the statute affecting the existing rights or unless there is clear manifestation of the intention of the Legislature on the basis of which it can be said that the law is retrospective in character, and even vested rights have been taken away or new liabilities have been created or new disabilities have been imposed. There are laws and laws and cases and cases, the real question is the question of application of the cardinal rule of construction which is propounded and considered above. It is also well established that there is a presumption against retrospectivity and this presumption can only be rebutted by express words in the Statute or by necessary intendment of the statute. It is also welt established that only to that extent, retrospectivity may be considered of the provisions In the statute which necessarily arises from the express words or from necessary intendment. Beyond that extent, retrospectivity should not be considered to have arisen.
( 1 ) THIS civil revision raises an important question as to the interprctation of Section 3 (c) as inserted by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, (for short, the Amendment Act) That question arose before Hon ble Mr. Justice N. N. Goswami in the aforesaid revision. He, by his order dated 9 1. 19k9, referred the question to be answered authoritatively by the Division Bench of this Court. The question that arose before him was as to whether the Amendment Act applies to the pendicg proceedings and according to him as the question would arise in a number of pending cases before this court as well as before the Rent Controller and the Appellate authority, so for deciding the question authoritatively, reference was made by him for deciding the said question by the Division Bench.
( 2 ) WE may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the present reference.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in this petition, Mrs. Nirmaljeet Arora let out the premises in question to the respondent on 14. 7. 80 at a rental of Rs. 5000. 00 per month for a period of 3 years. On 18. 2. 1985, the petitioner filed a petition filed a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1 ) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) against the respondent. The said petition after trial was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Delhi, On 7. 3. 1987. It was found that the petitioner acquired a rented premises being M-137, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, and the need of the petitioner has extinguished. Aggrieved from the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed thin revision petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Rent Act, on 26 5. 1987. The respondents filed anapplication being CM. 2892/88 on 2. 12. 88, raising a plea that a new clause (c) has been added to Section 3 of the Rent Act, by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 198x which lays down that the Act shall not apply to any premises whether residential or not whose monthly nt exceeds Rs. 3,500. 00 per month. In view of the above amendment, the premises in question were not covered by the provisions of Rent Act, 1958, as the agreed rent was more than Rs. 3,500. 00. The Amendment baa come into effect from 1. 12. 88 and so the revision was not maintainable. Areplytothe said application was filed on 5. 12. 88 in which the plea raised in the application was stated to be untenable and it wai submitted that added provision section 3 (c) would not apply to the pending proceedings. It is under these circumstances that the question arose before the learned Judge who has referred the question to be answered by the Division Bench.
( 4 ) WE have beared Shri R. K Makhija, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sbri S. N. Marwaha, learned counsel for the respondent. A notice. was also sent to the Bar, calling upon the members of the Bar, calling upon the members of the Bar that the question aforesaid has arisen and if any lawyer is interested to assist the court for answering the said question, be may appear before the court and make his submissions. Mainly, the learned counsel for the parties made their submissions before us
( 5 ) BY Section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, clauses (c) and (d) have been added in Section 3 of (he Act. Section 2 of the Amending Act reads as under :- 2. Amendment of Section 3.-In Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958), (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act)- (i) in clause (a) the word "or" shall be omitted; (ii) after the proviso, the following clauses shall be inserted, namely :-
" (C) to any premie, whether residetial or not, whose monthly relit exceeds three thousand and five hundred rupees; or (d) to any premises constructed on or after the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 19u, for a period of ten years from the date of completion of snch coastruction. "
( 6 ) SECTION 3 makes a provision that the Act shall not apply to premises which fall under clauses
