S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This revision has been referred by one of us (Agrawal, J.) to the Division Bench as it involves an important question of law whether the amendments introduced in s. 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII of 1950) (for short the Act) by which the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No. XXII of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) which was promulgated on Sept. 29, 1975 and which was subsequently replaced by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 (the Amendment Act hereinafter) fall in the category of amendments which are intended to have retrospective operation or they fall in the category of amendments which do not have retrospective operation.

2. We may first notice the material facts the non-petitioner (plaintiff-tenant) instituted a suit on April 29, 1970 against the petitioner (defendant land lord) under s. 6 of the Act for fixation of standard rent in respect of the shop which was let out by the petitioner to the non-petitioner. The shop was first let out by the petitioner in 1957 to Radhamal Sindhi at a rent of Rs.40/- per month. Radhamal Sindhi vacated the shop in 1959 and thereafter, it was let out to Jodhpur April 29, 1959 at a rent of Rs. 50/- per month. Jodhraj also vacated the shop and it was given on rent to the non-petitioner on November 1, 1965 at a rent of Rs, 115/- per month and that the said rent was increased to Rs. 125/- per month under a rent note executed on November 17, 1966. The non-petitioner claimed that the basic rent for the shop was Rs. 40/- per month inasmuch as the shop had been let for the first time after January 1, 1946 at the rent of Rs, 40/- per month and that the standard rent for the shop also should be fixed at Rs. 40/- per month.

3. The suit was contested by the petitioner (landlord). It was stated that the shop was let for the first time on February 20, 1958 to Radhamal Sindhi at a rent of Rs. 55/- per month, that the petitioner had spent a considerable amount on the shop and thereafter, it was let out to the non-petitioner (tenant) at the rent of Rs. 115/-per month and from November 1, 1966, the non-petitioner raised the rent to Rs. 125/- per mensem. The learned Additional Munsif, Udaipur, by his judgment and decree dated February 21, 1975 fixed the standard rent at Rs. 69/- per month and held that the shop was first let to Radhamal Sindhi in 1958 after January 1, 1943 at the rent of Rs. 55/- per month and that according to the Explanation to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 6 of the Act, the basic rent of the premises was Rs. 55/- per month and so in view of the first proviso to sub-s (2) of s. 6 of the Act, the standard rent of the premises could not exceed the basic rent. He also took into consideration an additional amount of Rs. 2200/- which was spent by the petitioner on the repairs of the shop and at the rate of 7-1/2% in accordance with the provisions of s. 10 of the Act on the aforesaid amount,, he added Rs. 14/- per month to the basic rent of Rs. 55/-p.m. and thus, fixed the standard rent at Rs. 69/-per month. The petitioner as well as the non-petitioner both filed separate appeals against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated February 21, 1975 of the Additional Munsif and both these appeals (Civil Appeal No. 4 and 13 of 1975) were dismissed vide Judgment and decree dated January 14, 1977 by the Civil Judge, Udaipur and the Judgment and decree dated February 21, 1975 of the Additional Munsif were affirmed. Being dissatisfied with the appellate judgment and decree dated January 14, 1977 of the Civil Judge, the petitioner (landlord) has filed this revision petition.

4. During the pendency of the appeals of the petitioner and the non-petitioner before the Civil Judge, the Act was amended by the Ordinance which was subsequently, replaced by the Amendment Act.

5. In support of his appeal, before the Civil Judge, on behalf of the petitioner it w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document