Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 656
[Citation : 2009(3) RLW 2081 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Bhag Chand Vs. Addl. District Judge No.5, Kota & Ors. (Singh, J.)
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, CJ.
HON'BLE DALIP SINGH, J.
HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J.
Bhag Chand
Versus
Additional District Judge No.5, Kota & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7289 of 2004, decided on 04.05.2009
M.M. Ranjan, for Petitioner;
R.N. Mathur, Amicus Curiae, for Respondents;
A.K. Bhandari, Sr.Counsel assisted by Kinsukh Jain, Shiv Charan Gupta and Satyendra Kumar Gupta, Interveners
Headnote:(a) Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Sec. 29, 22(3)(a) — Whether Section 29 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 has its overriding effect on Sec. 32(3)(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001? — Held — Sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 does not have any overriding effect over Sec. 32(3)(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
(Para 30)
¼d½ jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001] /kkjk 29] 22¼3½¼d½ & D;k jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 29 jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e 2001 dh /kkjk 32¼3½¼d½ ij viuk v/;kjksgh izHkko j[krh gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 29 jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh /kkjk 32¼3½¼d½ ij viuk dksbZ v/;kjksgh izHkko ugha j[krhA ¼in la- 30½
(b) Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Sec. 29 and Sec. 32(3)(a) read with Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, Sec. 6 & 7 — Fixation of standard or provisional rent — Whether the suits, applications and other proceedings relating to fixation of standard or provisional rent u/Sec. 6 and 7 of the Act of 1950, which have been saved by Sec. 32(3)(a) of the act of 2001, will be governed by the provisions of Old Act of 1950 after coming into force of the New Act of 2001 or will be governed by the provisions of the New Act of 2001 as Sec. 6 and 7 of the Act of 1950 having been impliedly repealed, by virtue of Sec. 29 of the New Act of 2001? — Held — All the suits, applications and other proceedings relating to the fixation of the standard rent and provisional rent u/Sec. 6 and 7 of the Old Act of 1950 would be governed by the provisions of the Old Act of 1950 despite coming into force of the New Act of 2001. (Para 32)
Reference answered.
¼[k½ jktLFkku fdjk;k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2001] /kkjk 29 ,oa 32¼3½¼d½ lifBr jktLFkku ifjlj ¼fdjk;k ,oa csn[kyh fu;a=.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1950] /kkjk 6 o 7 & ekud ;k vufUre fdjk;k fLFkj djuk & D;k 1950 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 o 7 ds rgr ekud ;k vufUre fdjk;k fLFkjhdj.k lEcU/kh okn] vkosnu ,oa vU; dk;Zokfg;k¡ tks 2001 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 32¼3½¼d½ ds }kjk O;ko`r dh xbZ gS] os 2001 ds u;s vf/kfu;e ds izHkkoh gksus ds ipkr~ 1950 ds iqjkus vf/kfu;e esa izko/kkuksa ls fofu;fer gksaxs ;k 2001 ds u;s vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ls fofu;fer gksaxs D;ksafd 2001 ds u;s vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 29 ds QyLo:i 1950 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 o 7 vkk; iwoZd fujflr dj nh xbZ gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & 1950 ds iqjkus vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 o 7 ds rgr ekud vkSj vufUre fdjk;s ds fLFkjhdj.k lEcU/kh lHkh okn] vkosnu] ,oa vU; dk;Zokfg;k¡ 2001 ds u;s vf/kfu;e ds izHkkoh gksus ds mijkUr Hkh 1950 ds iqjkus vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ls fofu;fer gksaxsA ¼in la- 32½
funsZk dk mÙkj fn;kA
Hon'ble SINGH, J..— The questions for consideration which have been referred to the Larger Bench for decision are as follows:-
(1) Whether Section 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 has its overriding effect on Section 32(3)(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001;
(2) Whether the suits, applications and other proceedings relating to fixation of standard or provisional rent under Sections 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which have been saved by Section 32(3) (a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, will be governed by the provisions of the Old Act of 1950, after coming into force of the New Act of 2001 or will be governed by the provisions of the New Act of 2001 as Sections 6 and 7 of the Act of 1950, having been impliedly repealed, by virtue of Section 29 of the New Act of 2001 as held by the Division Bench in Kamal Kishore's case (supra)?
2. The background in which these questions arise are that a writ petition was filed by the defendant-tenant against whom an order dated 29.01.2004 was passed determining the provisional rent under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 as Rs.1,600/-enhancing the rent from Rs.400/- per month which was being paid by the defendant-tenant-petitioner. The defendant-tenant-petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2004 in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge No.5, Kota hearing the appeal dismissed the appeal by the judgment dated 09.09.2004.
3. It is in this background that the orders dated 29.01.2004 passed by the learned trial court and 09.09.2004 passed by the learned appellate court were challenged by the defendant-tenant-petitioner in writ petition before this court. It was the contention of the defendant-tenant-petitioner before the two courts below as also before the learned Single Judge that with the coming into force of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (Act No.1 of 2003) w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the provisions of Section 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Old Act of 1950”) stood repealed and, therefore, the application filed by the plaintiff-landlord under Section 6 and 7 of the Old Act of 1950 was not maintainable and if at all the rent was to be revised, the same was to be revised in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the New Act of 2001”).
4. Before the learned Single Judge when the matter came up for consideration on 25.04.2008, the aforesaid contention of the defendant-tenant-petitioner was raised and in support of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in Kamal Kishore and 16 Others vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2008(1) WLC (Raj.) 29 = 2008(1) RLW (Raj.) 192 wherein the Division Bench of this court held as follows:-
“40. Under the non obstante clause provided for in Section 32(3)(a) of the New Act, pending suits for fixation of rent either standard or provisional, shall be governed by the repealed Act, whereas under Section 29 of the New Act, the provisions of the New Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. If these two provisions are read together and the situation arises where the suit of same premises is pending for fixation of standard rent filed by the tenant prior to coming into force of the New Act which is for reducing the rent as agreed upon, that suit will have to be decided by the court under the Old Act but after coming into force of the New Act, if the landlord files a suit or application for revision of rent under Section 6 of the New Act in accordance with the formula of 5% per annum increase of the agreed rent then what will be the fate of the suit filed by the tenant, has not been answered in the saving clause. This apparent anomaly whereby course of justice is diluted in disposal o
