Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Balbeer Kumar Jain And Anr. vs Tripti Kumar Kothari on 22 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: RLW2004(2)RAJ819, 2003(4)WLC790
JUDGMENT Goyal, J.
1. Following common question of law arises in these four appeals:-
"Whether the proceedings for fixation of standard rent under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001, would be governed by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act 1950 (for short the old Act) or by the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 (New Act) which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.03.?"
2. Civil First Appeal Nos. 294/03, and 373/2003, respectively filed by tenants and landlord are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2003, passed in Civil Suit No. 28/2000, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, while dismissing the suit for eviction fixed Rs. 2500/- per month as standard rent under Section 6 of the Old Act. The tenants have come against the order of fixation of standard rent while the landlord has filed the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for eviction as well as fixation of standard rent at lower side.
3. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1227/2003, is preferred by tenant Prahlad Narain against the impugned order dated 10.4.2003, by which learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City. Jaipur, provisionally fixed the rent under Section 7 of the Old Act at the rate of 8,000/-, in Civil Suit No. 195/2001, filed for eviction and for fixation of standard rent as provided under Section 6 of the Old Act.
4. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1617/2003, is preferred against the order dated 4.7.2003, by which learned Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, provisionally fixed standard rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 7 of the Old Act, in Civil Suit No. 41/2002, filed for fixation of standard rent under Section 6 of the Old Act.
5. Before adverting to the rival submissions, the relevant provisions of the Old & New Act are reproduced as under:-
Old Act Section 6. Fixation of Standard rent:-(1) Where no rent has been agreed upon or where for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed to be low or excessive, the landlord or the tenant may institute a suit in the lowest court of competent jurisdiction for fixation of standard rent for any premises.
(2) the court shall, after holding such summary inquiry as it may consider just and necessary determine the standard rent for such premises and shall, in doing so, act according to the following principles, namely:-
(a) Where the premises are let for residential purposes or for any of the purposes of the public hospital aushadhalaya or dawakhana, a recognised educational institution, a public library or reading room or any orphange the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent increased by fifty percent thereof; and
(b) Where the premises are let for any other purposes, the standard rent shall not exceed two and half times the basic rent thereof;
Provided that where the premises have been First let after the first day of January, 1965, the standard rent shall not exceed the basic rent thereof:-
Provided further that where the fair rent or standard rent for any premises has been determined or redetermined by any court under this Act or by any authority under any law or order repealed by Section 30 before the commencement of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 and the amount of such fair rent or standard rent is the same as would be determinable as standard rent by the Court under this Section the fair rent or standard rent previously determined or redetermined shall not be disturbed.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section, the basic rent of any premises shall mean the rent at which the premises were let on the first day of January, 1962 and, if not let on that day, the rent at which they were first let after that day.
(3) Where for any reason it is not possible to determine the standard rent of any premises on the principles set out in Sub-section (2); the court shall determine such rent having due regard to the prevailing rent or standard rent, for similar premises in the same locality, the various amenities such as electricity, water connection, sanitory fittings and the like, attached to the premises, the cost of construction, maintenance and repairs thereof, the special reason, if any; proved by the plaintiff and other relevant considerations.
(4) In fixing the standard rent for any premises under this section, the court shall determine such rent in respect of the premises in an unfurnished state but may also determine additional charge to be payable on account of fittings or furnishing and it shall be lawful for the landlord to recover such additional charge from the tenant.
(5) In every case in which the court determines the standard rent for any premises under this section it shall appoint a date from which the standard rent so determined shall be deemed to have effect;
Provided that such date shall, in the case of a tenant who institutes a suit under this section after the expiration of six months from the commencement of his tenancy on the ground of the rent agreed upon being excessive, be the date of the institution of such suit or such later date as the court in the circumstances of the case deem reasonable.
Section 7. Fixation of Provisional rent:- (1) Upon the institution of a suit under Section 6, the court shall forthwith make an order fixing in a summary manner a provisional rent for the premises in question, which shall be binding on all parties concerned and shall remain in force till a decree fixing the standard rent therefore is finally made in such suits.
(2) The provisional rent fixed under this section shall also apply to such arrears of rent as in the case of a tenant who has instituted within six months from the commencement of the tenancy a suit under Section 6 on the ground of the rent agreed upon being excessive relate to the period intervening between such commencement and institution.
(3) A suit for the recover of arrears of rent to which the provisional rent fixed under this section is applicable shall be stayed by the court upon the payment by the tenant in court of the total amount due to the landlord on the basis of such provisional rent.
(4) Any failure to pay the provisional rent for any month by fifteenth day of the next following month shall render the tenant liable to eviction under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13, and all sums due from the tenant as such rent shall be recoverable from him as if the order under Sub-section (1) were a decree of the court in a suit for periodical payments.
(5) All amounts paid as provisional rent shall be adjusted towards payment of the standard rent finally decreed.
New Act Section 6. Revision of rent in respect of existing tenancies-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement, where the premises have been let out before the commencement of this Act, the rent thereof shall be liable to be revised according to the formula indicated below:-
(a) where the premises have been let out prior to 1st January, 1950, it shall be deemed to have been let out on 1st January, 1950, and the rent payable at that time shall be liable to be increased at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. The amount of rent so arrived at shall again be liable to be increased at the rate of 7.5% per annum in similar manner upto the year of commencement of this Act;
(b) Where the premises have been let out on or after 1st January, 1950, the rent payable at the time of commencement of the tenancy shall be liable to be increased at the rate of 7.5% per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. The amount of rent so arrived at shall again be liable to be increased at the rate of 7.5% per annum in similar manner upto the year of commencement of this Act.
Illustration:-lf the rent was Rs. 100/- per month on 1st January, 1950, it shall bec9me Rs. 175/- per month on 1st January, 1960. It shall become Rs. 306.30 per month on 1st January, 1970 and Rs. 536.30 per month on 1st January, 1980.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where the period of ten years for merger of increase of rent under Sub-section (1), is not completed upto the year of commencement of this Act, the rent at the rate of 7.5% per annum shall be increased upto the year of the commencement of this Act and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in rent.
(3) The rent arrived at according to the formula given in Sub-sections(1) and (2) shall, after completion of each year from the year of commencement of this Act, again be liable to be increased and paid at the rate of 5% per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. Such rent shall further be liable to be increased at similar rate and merged in similar manner till the tenancy subsists.
(4) The rent revised as per formula given under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be payable, after the commencement of this Act, from the date agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant or where any petition is filed in a Rent Tribunal from the date of filing of such petition.
Section 7. Revision of rent in respect of new tenancies.- (1) In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the rent of the premises let out after the commencement of this Act shall be liable to be increased at the rate of 5% per annum and the amount of increase of rent shall be merged in such rent after ten years. Such rent shall further be liable to be increased at the similar rate and merged in similar manner till the tenancy subsists.
(2) Any agreement for increase of rent in excess of 5% per annum shall be void to that extent.
Section 14. Procedure for revision of rent.-(1) The landlord may seek revision of rent under Section 6 or Section 7 by submitting a petition before the Rent Tribunal accompanied by affidavits and documents, if any.
(2) On filing of such petition the Rent Tribunal shall issue notice accompanied by copies of petition, affidavits and documents to the opposite party fixing a date not later than thirty day from the date of issue of notice. The opposite party may file reply, affidavits and documents after serving the copies of the same on the petitioner, within a period not exceeding thirty days from the date of service of notice. The service of notice shall be effected through process server of the Tribunal or Civil Court as well as by registered post, acknowledgment due. Notice duly served by any of these methods shall be treated as sufficient service.
(3) The petitioner may thereafter file rejoinder, if any, after serving the copy to the opposite party, within a period not exceeding fifteen days from the date of service of the reply.
(4) Rent Tribunal shall thereafter fix a date of hearing, which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of notice on the tenant.
Section 29. Act to have overriding effect.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other Law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any Law other than this Act.
Section 32. Repeal and savings.- (1) The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. 17 of 1950) shall stand repealed with effect from the date notified under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of this Act.
(2) The repeal under Sub-section (1) shall not affect,-
(a) anything duly done or suffered under the enactment so repealed; or
(b) any right, title, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the enactment so repealed; or
(c) any fine, penalty or punishment incurred or suffered under the provisions of the enactment so repealed.
(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 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 purpose 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 prosecutions instituted under the provisions of the repealed Act shall be effective and disposed of in accordance with such repealed law;
(d) any rule or notification made or issued under the repealed Act and in force on the date of commencement of this Act shall continue to govern the pending cases.
Section 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 reads as under:-
6. Effect of Repeal (1) Where any Rajasthan law repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made then unless a different intention appears the repeal shall not-
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or
(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or
(d) affect any fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment, may be imposed, as if the repealing law had not been passed.
(2) The provisions of this section shall also apply upon the expiry or withdrawal of any Rajasthan law [as if such law had not expired or, as the case may be, had not been withdrawn].
Provided that the provision contained in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall not so apply.
6. All the three Civil Suits for eviction and fixation of standard rent were instituted prior to the New Act came into force, while the impugned judgment/orders were passed subsequent to that.
7. Learned counsel Mr. R.K. Agarwal appearing for the tenants contended that the repeal of the Old Act is accompanied by the New Act on the same subject and as such the provisions of the New Act will apply as the New Act indicates different intentions with regard to the right of the landlord for increase in rent; that the provisions of the New Act will have to be looked into for the purposes of determining the standard rent; that a bare reading of Section 6 of the New Act reveals that the Legislature intended to give retrospective effect to the revision of rent; that the impugned order was passed after the New Act came into force and no decree/order inconsistent with the provisions of the New Act could be passed after it came into force; that a bare perusal of the Section 32 of the New Act reveals that only the forum and procedure with regard to the pending cases have been saved and the quantum or the rate of increase in the rent has not been saved; that the trial court committed manifest error of law in not adverting to the non-obstante clause as contained in Section 6 of the New Act as the intention of the Legislature is manifest from the aforesaid non-obstante clause; that the rent after commencement of the New Act can be revised only in accordance with the formula indicated in Section 6 of the New Act and not otherwise; that Section 29 of the New Rent Control Act relating to the overriding effect was not taken into consideration by the trial court as the said Section stipulates in unambiguous terms that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act and it leaves no room for any doubt that though the pending cases were to be decided by courts in which they were pending but no decree inconsistent with the provisions of the New Act could be passed and the impugned decree/orders being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the New Act are bad in law; that it could not be the legislative intent that for a suit/proceeding filed immediately before the commencement of the New Act for fixation of standard rent and another filed immediately after the commencement of the New Act but both decided after the commencement of the New Act for the same premises, would have determination of different quantum of rent and to remove such incompatibility, Section 29 was inserted in the New Act and thus Section 6 of the New Act would be applicable to all pending cases for determination of standard rent. He placed reliance upon following judgments:-
(1) Manphul Singh Sharma v. Ahmedi Begum (1), (2) Gajraj Singh and Ors. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. (2), (3) Hungerfort Investment Trust Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) v. Haridas Mundhra and Ors. (3), (4) Thyseen Stahlunion Gmbh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (4), (5) State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh Pratap Singh (5), (6) Panna Lal Bansilal Pitti and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Anr. (6), (7) Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (7), and (8) Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and Another (8).
8. Learned Counsel Mr. Rastogi adopted the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Agarwal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Kasliwal argued that Sub-section 3(a) of Section 32 of the New Act clearly provides that all applications, Suits or other proceedings under the repealed Act pending on the date of commencement of the New Act 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. According to Mr. Kasliwal, thus there being no ambiguity in application of provisions of the Old Act in cases of fixation of standard rent pending before the New Act came into force are to be governed by the provision of the Old Act and question of interpretation w.e.f. the date of applicability of the old Act or New Act does not even arise; that what would be the effect of repeal of the Old Act as provided under Section 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act would be taken into consideration only when a different intention appears while no different intention appears in view of Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 32 of the Act; that Section 29 of the New Act would have no effect on pending cases in view of specific provisions contained in Section 32(3) a) of the New Act and further the provisions of the Old Act providing for fixation of standard rent are in no way inconsistent with the provisions of the New Act providing for revision of the rent; that a particular date has to be provided for every new legislation to come into force and it is a reasonable classification and thus no such conclusion can be drawn that the New Act would be applicable only on the count that the rent would be more when determined under the Old Act and it would be at lower side when revised under the New Act; that the landlord or the tenant as the case may be had a legal right to get standard rent determined by the Court as provided under Section 6 of the Old Act and provisional standard rent as provided under Section 7 of the Old Act. He placed reliance upon following judgments:-
(1) Jindal Oil Mills & Others, Somalal Nathji and Ors. v. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. (9), (2) Bansidhar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (10), (3) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiyalal and Ors. (11), and (4) Land Acquisition Officer - cum - DSWO, A.P. v. B.V. Reddy and Sons (12).
10. Learned counsel Mr. B.L. Agarwal and Dr. P.C. Jain while supporting the submissions made by Mr. Kasliwal, contended that there is no provision of fixation/determination of provisional standard rent under the New Act and thus the same was rightly determined under Section 7 of the Old Act; that the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Old Act provide for fixation of standard rent in case no rent has been agreed upon between the parties or where for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed to be low or excessive while there are no similar provisions in the New Act rather Sections 6 and 7 of the New Act provide for revision of rent in respect of existing and new tenancy respectively and the factors for fixation of standard rent under the Old Act are quite different from the formula prescribed under Sections 6 and 7 of the New Act.
11. For assisting the Court on the law point involved, learned counsel Mr. Abhay Bhandari submitted that although the Old Act would apply in pending cases but in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Old Act, the Court while determining the standard rent should take into consideration the New Provisions also.
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions.
In Manphul's case (supra), the tenant was empowered to sub- let the suit property. The appellant was sub-tenant. The landlord filed civil suit for eviction as the head tenant failed to pay rent. Under Section 20 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, the tenant was empowered to sub-let the suit property. The suit of the landlord was decreed and in execution proceedings the High Court rejected the objections raised by sub-tenant on the point of surrender; that he was not a lawful sub-tenant. During the pendency of these proceedings the Rent Control Act 1952 was repealed and was replaced by Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 prohibiting sub-tenancy by the tenants. Para Nos. 12 and 13 of this judgment being relevant are reproduced as under:-
12. It has already been seen that the decree for ejectment was passed on 31.8.1959 by valid proceedings taken under the 1952 Act. No doubt, that Act stood repealed on 9.2.1959, when 1958 Act came into force. The question, therefore, to be posed is which one of these two Acts is to govern, whether the 1952 Act or the 1958 Act ? At this stage, we must pay due regard to Section 57 of the 1958 Act. That says:
"57. Repeal and Savings.- (1) The Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952), insofar as it is applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi, is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other proceedings under the said Act pending, at the commencement of this Act, before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, as if the said Act had continued in force and this Act had not been passed :
Provided that in any suit or proceedings for the fixation of standard rent or for the eviction of a tenant from any premises to which Section 54 does not apply, the court or other authority shall have regard to the provisions of this Act;
Provided further that the provisions for appeal under the said Act shall continue in force in respect of suits and proceedings disposed of thereunder."
13. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the 1958 Act, the 1952 Act was repealed. However, what is material for our purposes is Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the 1958 Act, which says: "Notwithstanding such repeal all suits and other proceedings under the 1952 Act should be continued as if the 1958 Act had not been enacted." Obviously, the first proviso has no application to the facts of this case. This is the purpose and indentment of this sub-section. This follows the pattern as envisaged by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 are similar to the provisions of Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 32 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001. There are no similar provisions in the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 as contained in first Proviso of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, with regard to fixation of standard rent. In Para 14 of this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court held with regard to the effect of repeal that when a repeal is accompanied by a fresh legislation on the same subject the provisions of the new Act will have to be looked into to determine whether and how far the New Act protects or keeps alive the old rights and liabilities. In the result the Hon'ble Apex Court held that New Act of 1958 would not be applicable.
In Gajraj's case (supra), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed by the New Act in 1991. With regard to renewal of the permit under the New Act; it was held that grant of renewal of permit under the New Act is a mere privilege and not an accrued or a vested right. It was further held that whenever an Act is repealed it must be considered, except as to transactions passed and closed, as if it had never existed. The effect thereof is to obliterate the Act completely from the record of Parliament as if it had never been passed ; it never existed except for the purpose of those actions which were commenced, prosecuted and concluded while it was an existing law. When repeal of an Act is simultaneously followed by fresh enactment on the same subject, S. 6 of the General Clauses Act would be applicable unless the fresh legislation manifests a contrary or inconsistent intention and thus the Court has to ascertain legislative intent.
In Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (supra), it was held that the appellant had no accrued right for rescission of the contract or the decree for specific performance under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, when the Act was repealed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The mere right to take advantage of the provisions of an Act is not an accrued right.
In Thyssen's case (supra), it was held that when arbitral proceedings commenced under the old (repealed) Act, right to have award rendered in the said proceedings enforced under that Act is an accrued right.
In State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh (supra), it was held that whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as the section itself says that a different intention appears.
In Panna Lal's case (supra), it was Held :
Section 16 with a non obstante clause abolishes the hereditary right in trusteeship of charitable and Hindu religious institutions or endowments. The pre-existing herediatary right in trusteeship in the office of the hereditary trustee, mutawalli, dharmakarta or muntazim or by whatever name it is called was abolished prospectively from the date of the commencement of the Act. It is settled legislative device to employ non obstante clause to suitably alter the pre-existing law consistent with the legislative policy under the New Act to provide the remedy for the mischief the legislature felt most acute.
In Rameshwar's case (supra), it was held that whenever a court is called upon to interpret an amended provision it has to bear in mind the history of the provision, the mischief which the legislature attempted to remedy, the remedy provided by the amendment and the reason for providing such remedy.
In Bhatia's case (supra), it was held that where a statutory provision can be interpreted in more than one way, court must identify the interpretation which represents the true intention of the legislature, always bearing in mind, however, that a court should not try to legislate.
In Jindal oil Mills and others (supra), it was held in para 10 that the law declared by the Amending Act does not affect any right or privilege, accrued under the repealed provision.
In Banshidhar's case (supra), it was held that new enactment can be referred to only to ascertain any contrary intention as to applicability of Section 6 of General Clauses Act.
In Land Acquisition Officer's case (supra), it was held that a substantive provision can not be retrospective unless the provision itself so indicates.
In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that benefit of amended provisions with regard to Award of land acquisition could not be granted either by High Court or by Supreme Court in respect of the awards made by Collector or Court before the date of New Act came into force.
13. A bare perusal of Section 6 of the Old Act goes to show that it provides for fixation of standard rent where no rent has been agreed upon or where for any reason the rent agreed upon is claimed to be low or excessive, the landlord or the tenant may institute a suit in the lowest court of competent jurisdiction for fixation of standard rent for any premises. Sub-section (3) of the above Section provides that the court shall determine such rent having due regard to the prevailing rent or standard rent for similar premises in the same locality including some other factors as contained therein. As pointed out by senior counsel Mr. Bhandari the Court may look into other relevant considerations also as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Old Act. Learned counsel Mr. Agarwal also contended that the Court should take into consideration the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the New Act while determining the standard rent. What may be the other relevant considerations and the Provisions of the New Act whether should be taken into consideration are the points to be considered while hearing these appeals on merits. There are no similar provisions for fixation of standard rent in the New Act and further there is no provision for fixation of provisional standard rent in the New Act while Section 7 of the Old Act provides for fixation of provisional standard rent. Sections 6 and 7 of the New Act respectively provide for revision of rent in respect of existing and new tenancies. A formula is given under both these Sections for revision of rent in respect of existing and new tenancies. The provisions of Old Sections 6 and 7, in my view are not consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the New Act, rather Sections 6 and 7 of the New Act provide for revision of rent according to the formula as indicated in Sections 6 and 7 of the New Act. Further, this submission of learned counsel Mr. R.K. Agarwal with regard to interpretation of the intention of the legislation in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act is not acceptable in view of the clear provisions contained in the New Act. The provisions of Sub-section (3) (a) of Section 32 of the New Act are clear on this point that 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. In view of such clear and specific provisions, question of interpretation of legislative intent does not arise here at all. This submission also that Section 29 of the New Act has got overriding effect over the provisions of Section 32(3) of the New Act is devoid of merit. As stated hereinabove the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of the Old Act providing for fixation of standard rent in absence of an agreement or in case of the agreed rent is low or excessive as the case may be are not inconsistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the New Act providing for revision of rent in existing tenancies. Only on account of this aspect that in case standard rent is fixed in accordance with provisions of old Section 6, that may be higher in comparision to the rent revised under Section 6 of the New Act is no ground to hold that pending applications, suits or other proceedings under the repealed Act on the date of commencement of this New Act would be governed by the New Act. At the cost of the repetition, it is observed that the Provisions of Section 32(3)(a) of the New Act are very clear and thus all the proceedings for fixation 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.
14. Let all these appeals be admitted and listed for hearing on merits.