TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending Act came into effect from 1.12.1988. Section 3(c) of the Amending Act provided that the provisions of the Rent Act will not apply to premises whose monthly rent exceeded ₹ 3,500/-. The question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is--whether Section 3(c) as amended was applicable to standard rent application, which was pending before the Court on 1.12.1988 when the Amending Act came into force? 2. On 7th May, 1976, an agreement was entered into between the appellant-tenant and the respondent-landlord, under which the appellant took on lease a shop on a monthly rent of ₹ 5,000/- per month. On 11.4.1978, the appellant filed a petition for fixation of standard rent under Section 9 of the Rent Act. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enant had a right to apply for fixation of standard rent without limit. It was urged that when the lis commenced on 11.4.1978, all the rights of the appellant got crystallized. That the Rent Act was a beneficent legislation and the Amendment Act while inserting Section 3(c) did not intend to obliterate the rights vested in the appellant on the date of his petition for fixation of standard rent. It was vehemently urged that the appellant cannot be made to suffer because of Court's delay. In this connection, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the doctrine of Act us curiae neminem gravabit . It was further contended that the right not to pay rent in excess of the standard rent did not depend on its fixation by the Rent Controller ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot a right of an enduring nature. What is unaffected by repeal is a right acquired or accrued under the Act. That till the decree is passed, there is no accrued right. The mere right existing on date of repeal to take advantage of the repealed provisions is not a right accrued within Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act. Further, there is a vast difference between rights of a tenant under the Rent Act and the rights of the landlord. The right of a statutory tenant to pay rent not exceeding standard rent or the right to get standard rent fixed are protective rights and not vested rights. On the other hand, the landlord has rights recognised under the law of Contract and Transfer of Property Act which are vested rights and which are suspen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nature of rights of the tenant under the Rent Act. The ratio of this decision supports our above view. 5. The judgment of this Court in the case of Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia reported in (1994) IIILLJ 972SC , has no application to the present case. In that case, the landlord has instituted the suit, in Civil Court in Haryana, for possession of the shop rented out to the tenant in 1978, on the ground of arrears of rent. It was filed in the Civil Court as the premises in question were exempted for 10-years from the Rent Act, On behalf of the tenant, it was urged that in view of Section 1(3) of the Rent Act the suit was not maintainable and under Section 20 of the Rent Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and the contract rent was not to be increased. It was held by this Court, by a majority decision, that the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act was a complete Code in respect of contractual tenancies as well as statutory tenancies. That the scheme of the Act was different from the Bombay Rent Act. On close reading of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, this Court found that the fair rent Was required to be fixed for the building which was something like an incident of tenure regarding the building. This conclusion was based on the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. Hence, the judgment of this Court in the case of M/ s. Raval Co. (supra), has no application to the facts of this case. 7. In any event of the matter where there is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
