2007 Supreme(Raj) 2304

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
Sita Devi and Another - Appellant
Versus
Bishamber Dayal - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4043 of 2006.
Decided On : 20-11-2007

The reduced rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment) Act, 2005 would apply to pending proceedings as well as to proceedings initiated after the amendment and the tenant can also approach the Rent Tribunal for re-revision of the rent at the reduced rate for the period from the date of commencement of tenancy till the commencement of the Act of 2001.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL - Revision of rent - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (Act 1 of 2003) - Section 6 - Amendment by Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 3 of 2005) - Substitution of rate of increase of rent from 7.5% to 5% per annum - Retrospective effect - Whether the reduced rate of 5% per annum would apply to pending proceedings or only to proceedings initiated after the amendment - Whether the tenant can also approach the Rent Tribunal for re-revision of the rent at the reduced rate for the period from the date of commencement of tenancy till the commencement of the Act of 2001.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner-landlord let out a shop to the respondent No. 1 in old Subji Mandi, Dholpur on 20.12.1985. Initial amount of rent settled between the parties was As. 400 per month which by mutual consent was later increased to Rs. 475 per month. The Act of 2001 was enforced w.e.f. April, 1, 2003. Petitioner-landlord filed application under Section 6 of the Act on June 30, 2003 for revision of the rent as per the statutory formula prescribed therein on the basis of initial amount of rent of Rs. 400/- . Non-petitioner-tenant filed reply to that application on 5.11.2003. Rent Tribunal upon examining evidence and hearing the parties by its order dated 3.5.2005 revised the rent from As. 400 to Rs. 1068/- w.e.f. 1.4.2003. Non-petitioner-tenant filed appeal against the aforesaid order before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. In the meantime, the legislature enacted Rajasthan Rent Control (Second Amendment) Act, 2005, which received consent of the President of India on June 11, 2006. This amendment Act which was enforced by notification of State Government dated January 19, 2006, amended clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) & sub-section (2) of Section 6 so as to substitute the existing rate of 7.5% by 5% per annum. Appellate Rent Tribunal on the basis of amended provisions allowed the appeal and reduced the increased amount of Rs 1,068/- per month which was calculated by applying the rate of 7.5%, to Rs. 810/- per month at the rate of 5%. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-landlord has preferred this writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the reduced rate of 5% per annum would apply to pending proceedings as well as to proceedings initiated after the amendment. The Court also held that the tenant can also approach the Rent Tribunal for re-revision of the rent at the reduced rate for the period from the date of commencement of tenancy till the commencement of the Act of 2001.

Issues: 1. Whether the reduced rate of 5% per annum would apply to pending proceedings or only to proceedings initiated after the amendment? 2. Whether the tenant can also approach the Rent Tribunal for re-revision of the rent at the reduced rate for the period from the date of commencement of tenancy till the commencement of the Act of 2001?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the reduced rate of 5% per annum would apply to pending proceedings as well as to proceedings initiated after the amendment because the amendment was intended to be retrospective in operation. The Court relied on the following principles of law: * A statute can be held to be retrospective even by necessary implication and it was not necessary that it must be so expressed in the very terms of the Section to be construed. * A retrospective operation is, therefore, not to be given to a statute so as to impair existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matter of procedure unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. * Before applying a statute retrospectively the Court has to be that the statute is in fact retrospective. * The presumption against retrospectivity may in such cases be rebutted by necessary implications from the language employed in the statute. * It cannot be said to be an invariable rule that a statute could not be retrospective unless so expressed in the very terms of the section which had to be construed. * The question is whether on a proper construction the legislature may be said to have so expressed its intention. 2. The Court held that the tenant can also approach the Rent Tribunal for re-revision of the rent at the reduced rate for the period from the date of commencement of tenancy till the commencement of the Act of 2001 because the right to approach the Rent Tribunal for revision of rent is not confined to the landlord alone. The Court relied on the following principles of law: * The provisions of the Act of 2001 are to be interpreted in such a way as to make their harmonious construction with an avowed objective of ensuring that the application of the enactment to its subject is even handed and uniform and is not discriminatory giving rise to incongruous and absurd consequences. * Efforts should be towards ensuring that construction that results in hardship, serious inconvenience, injustice and absurdity or anomaly leading to inconsistency in the system which the Statute purports to regulate should be avoided at any cost. * The legislature having substituted the old rate by the new one and reduced the same from 7.5% to the reduced rate therefore by necessary implication would apply retrospectively.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition.