Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2158 (RAJ)

Uttam Chand Deshraj v. Heera Lal

2005-08-12

J.R.GOYAL

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order, they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff M/s. Uttam Chand Deshraj filed a suit bearing No. 15/2001, against defendant Heera Lal under section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Old Act') in respect of the shop in dispute. Learned Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dated 30.7.2003 fixing provisional standard rent of the shop taking into consideration the formula envisaged under section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the New Act'). Feeling aggrieved by the order impugned, plaintiff and defendant, both filed these appeals. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant contended that the learned court below erred in law in fixing provisional standard rent of the shop in dispute, taking into account the provisions of the New Act as the suit was filed prior to the commencement of the New Act and by virtue of the provisions contained in section 32 of the New Act,' the proceedings under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of the New Act were to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff admitted that the suit was filed under the provisions of the Old Act but certain amendments were sought in the written statement by the defendant referring the provisions of the New Act. It was also contended that the disputed shop, which is at a prime location, is on rent with the defendant since 1961 but only an amount of Rs. 1075/- per month has been determined by the learned court below as provisional standard rent, which is on a very lower side. 6. It have considered the rival contentions. 7. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed the suit under section 6 of the Old Act for fixation of standard rent but the learned court below determined the provisional standard rent according to the formula envisaged under section 6 of the New Act for revision of the rent of existing tenancies. It have considered the rival contentions. 7. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed the suit under section 6 of the Old Act for fixation of standard rent but the learned court below determined the provisional standard rent according to the formula envisaged under section 6 of the New Act for revision of the rent of existing tenancies. To appreciate the controversy, it would be relevant to have a look on the provisions of section 32 of the New Act, which reads as under : 32. Repeal and savings.-(1)XXX XXXX (2) XXXXXXXX (3) Notwithstanding the repeal under sub- section (1). (a) all applications, suits or other proceedings under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of this Act before any court shall be continued and disposed of, in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act, as if the repealed Act had continued in force and this Act has been enacted...." It is clear from the aforesaid provision that the suits and other proceedings under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of the New Act have been saved as if the repealed Act had continued in force and New Act had not been enacted. This court has also considered this aspect in Balbeer Kumar Jain & Another v. Tripti Kumar Kothan, 2003(3) DN.) (Raj.) 1438 , wherein it was observed that the provisions of S.32(3)(a) of the New Act are very clear and thus all proceedings for determination of standard rent pending under the Old Act on the date of commencement of the New Act shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act. Thus, in view of the above position of law, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside. 8. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The matter is remitted back with the direction to the learned court below to determine the standard rent in accordance with the provisions of the Old Act. *******