Section 6 (2) (b) of the 1958 Act did not introduce radical changes in the old Act and did not take away the right of the tenant to have the standard rent fixed under the old Act.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by a tenant under section 30 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the 1952 Act) directed against the order of the learned District Judge; Delhi, whereby he remanded the case back to the trial Court.

( 2 ) THE landlord had completed construction of hou No. 19/4, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, after 9th June, 1955. On the 4th July, 1958. the ground floor of this house was let out for the first time to M/s General Auto Parts Company at the rate of Rs. 247/8 per month which included Rs. 22/8 as house tax. On 29th December, 1958/the tenant applied under section 8 (l) (b) of the 1952 Act for the fixation of standard rent of the premises Before it could be decided the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as 1958 Act) came into force on 9th February, 1959. The trial Court held that in view of the provisions of section 6 (2) (b) of 195 8 Act, the agreed rent shall be the standard rent of the permises for five years. The tenant rreferred TO an appeal against this order and the learned District Judge held that the trial Court should have also determined the standard rent of the premises to be effective after a period of five years from the date the house, was let out to the tenant and thus remanded the case back.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel far the tenant contends that proviso to subsection (2) of section 57 of 1958 Act shows that the standard rent should be determined under the provisions of 1952 Act and no regard should be given to the provisions of 1958 Act inasmuch as section 6 (2) (b) of 1958 Act brings out a radical change in the old Act and takes away the right which had accurued to the tenant to have the standarad rent fixed under the old Act. In order to appreciate the contontion of the contention of the learned counsel, the relevant provisions of the Act may be re-pioduced. Section 57 (2) reads as under :-

"notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other prcceedirgs under the said Act pending at the commencement ot this Act before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, as if the said Act had continued in force, and this Act had not been passed : Provided that in any such suit or proceeding for the fixation of standard rent or for the eviction of a tenant from any premises to which section 54 does not apply, the court or other authority shall have regard to the provisions of this Act. "section 6 (2) (b) of 1958 Act is as follows :-

"in the case of any premises, whether residential or not, constructed on or after the 9th day of June, 195s, including premises constructed after the commencement of this Act the annual rent calculated with reference to the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant when such premises were first let out shall be deemed to be the standard rent for a period of five years from the date of such letting out. "the contention is that whereas under the old Act, the tenant has a right to get the standard rent fixed, section 6 (2)1 (b) provides that in respect of the premises constructed on or after 9th June, 1955, the rent at which they were first let out shall be deemed to be the standard rent tor a period of five vears from the date of such letting. There was no such restriction under the 1952 Act and the new restrictions brought in by the above-mentioned sub-section (2) (b) of section 6 have the effect of taking away the right which had accrued to him under the old Act. The proviso to section 57 (2) of 1958 Act requires the Court only to have regard to the provisions of the new Act in cases where the proceedings were pending under the 1952 Act at the time the 1958 Act cams into force. In this connection, he relies upon Karam Singh Sobti v. Partap Chand1, in which the Supreme Court, while discussing the effect of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 57 of 1958 Act, held as under :-

"we think that the first proviso must be read harmo