IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11441/2009. Vishnu Vs. A.D.J. Karauli & Ors. Date of order : 14/9/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri L.L. Gupta for the petitioner. ******
Reportable
Petitioner who is judgment-debtor filed objection before the executing court that he should be required to pay rent in terms of the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 only upto the date of passing of the decree on 29/3/2008 and for any period beyond the date of decree, he should be entitled to protection which has been extended to the tenants in Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
Shri L.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in so far as the controversy that the suits which were pending at the time of enforcement of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 i.e. 1/4/2003, would be continued to be governed by the Act of 1950 but intention of the legislature in Section 6 of the Act of 2001 is to save the tenants from undue realization of the rent and therefore rent in the case of such tenants, in whose cases even the decree of eviction has been passed by the court under the provisions of the Act of 1950, atleast for the period beyond the date of such decree, has to be paid in terms of Section 6 of the Act of 2001 and the landlords cannot be permitted to arbitrarily claim enhanced rent for such period.
I am afraid, argument of the petitioner is too far fetched and cannot be upheld keeping in view the intention of the legislature as evidence from Sectioni 32 of the Act of 2001. Legislature in the aforesaid Section 32(3)(a), (b) & (c) provides as under:-
(a)all applications, suits or other proceedings under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of this Act before any court shall be continued and disposed of, in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act, as if the repealed Act had continued in force and this Act had not been enacted. However, the plaintiff within a period of one hundred and eighty days of coming into force of this Act shall be entitled to withdraw any suit or appeal or any other proceeding pending under the repealed Act with liberty to file fresh petition in respect of the subject matter of such suit or appeal or any other proceeding under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and for the purposes of limitation such petition shall, if it is filed within a period of two hundred and seventy days from the commencement of this Act, be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the suit which was so withdrawn and in case of withdrawal of appeal or other proceeding, on the date on which the suit, out of which such appeal or proceeding originated, was filed.
(b)the provision for appeal under the repealed Act shall continue in force in respect of applications, suits and proceedings disposed of thereunder;
(c)all suits and proceedings instituted under the provisions of the repealed Act shall be effective and disposed of in accordance with such repealed law
It would be evident from clause (a) that all suits, applications and other proceedings under the repealed Act, pending before any court shall be continued or disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2001 as if continued in force. Not only this clause (b) provides that the provision for appeal under the repealed Act shall continue in force in respect of applications, suits and proceedings disposed of thereunder. Clause (c) provides that all prosecutions instituted under the provisions of the repealed Act shall be effective and disposed of in accordance with such repealed law.
It is keeping in view this intention of the Legislature in view of Full Bench judgment in Bhag Chand Vs. Additional District Judge No.5, Kota & Ors. : 2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 775 in which Apex Court held that Section 29 of the Rajasthan Rent Cntrol Act, 2001 does not have any overriding effect over Section 32(3)(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. This leads just to the next qestion which is Whether the suits, applicatiions and other proceedings relating to fxation of standard or provisional rent nder Sections 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) At, 1950, which have been saved by Section 32(3)(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Coontrol Act, 2001, will be governed by the provsions 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 Vs. State of Rajasthan : 2008(1) RLW 192.
The words, applications, suits or proceedings under repealed Act from the date of commencement of this Act” are comprehensive enough to cover even exectuion of a decree passed under the provisions of the Act of 1950. If what is contended by the petitioner is accepted, that would result in creating a very incongurous situation that while upto the date of passing decree, rent required to be paid by the tenant and shall be regulated by the provisioins of the Act of 1950 and beyond that date, that would be subject to the provisions of the Act of 2001. What is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner was never the intention of the Legislature, which is evident even as per the proposition of law laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Bhagchand supra also which view represents correct ennunciation of law.
I therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned-order.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil