Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has contended as below :-

(i) In the case of Ram Narain & others Vs. Smt. Asha Devi & others (supra) after elaborate discussion and consideration of various relevant legal provisions, it has clearly been held that with the repeal of the Old Act the provisions of the same do not apply to those areas also to which the provisions of the New Act have not been made applicable and in those areas the suit for eviction is required to be filed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was also submitted that merely because in that case provisions of Section 27 of the Act were not taken into consideration it cannot be held that decision is per incurium and a different view is required to be taken. For the applicability of Section 27 of the Act, it is necessary that there is no express provision in the re-enacted Act indicating that the notification issued under the repealed Act is no more in existence whereas in Section 32 of the New Act, there is express provision indicating that the notifications issued under the Old Act including the notification dated 10.5.1979 are no more in existence. Clause (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the New Act clearly provides that only such notification issued under the Old Act will remain in force which govern the pending cases filed under the provisions of the Old Act. According to learned counsel for the non-petitioner if a suit was filed under the provisions of the Old Act and it was pending on the date on which the Old Act was repealed and the New Act was enforced, for the purpose of governing that pending case notification dated 10.5.1979 shall be deemed to be in force although the Old Act under which it was issued has been repealed but if a new suit is to be filed relating to a premises situated at a Municipal Town not comprising a District Headquarter the notification dated 10.5.1979 will not be applicable.
(iii) In the State of Rajasthan at the same time two Rent Control Acts cannot be made applicable, one applicable to the areas comprising District Headquarters and the other to the areas of remaining municipal towns.
(iv) According to Section 27 of the Act the notification issued under the repealed Act shall be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of the New Act but it is not possible that a notification by virtue of which provisions of the Old Act were made applicable to all Municipal towns of the State of Rajasthan is deemed to be issued under the provisions of the New Act as under the provisions of the New Act only the New Act can be made applicable and not the provisions of the Old Act. According to learned counsel for the non-petitioner such notification cannot be deemed to have been issued under the provision of a re-enacted Act.

An analysis of Section 27 reveals that for the applicability of the same following conditions are required to be fulfilled:-

(i) There should not be any provision in the new Act expressly providing that the notification issued under the provisions of the repealed Act is no more applicable or operative. If any provision of the new Act expressly provides that the notification issued under the provisions of repealed Act has become inoperative or inapplicable, Section 27 will not be applicable.
(ii) The notification issued under the provisions of the repealed Act should not be in any way inconsistent with the provisions of the re-enacted Act i.e. the new Act. If the notification issued under the provisions of the old Act is in any way inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act, such notification cannot be held to be still operative and applicable after the repeal of the Old Act under which it was issued.

Apart from that, I am of the considered view that there is difference between a notification issued under the provisions of an Act by which the Act itself has been made applicable and a notification issued under some provision of the Act which has been issued to make that provision workable and functional. Section 27 of the Act saves only that notification issued under the provisions of the repealed Act which has been issued to make the provisions of the repealed Act workable and functional and not a notification by which the repealed Act itself was enforced. Section 27 provides that the notification issued under the repealed Act shall continue in force and be deemed to have been issued under the provisions so enacted unless and until it is superseded by any notification issued under the provisions so re-enacted. This part of Section 27 makes it clear that if some notification was issued under the provision of the repealed Act to make the provision of the same workable and functional but no such notification has been issued under the similar provision of the re-enacted Act i.e. new Act and such notification is not inconsistent with the provision of the new Act, then such notification shall remain applicable and operative and be deemed to have been issued under the provision of the new Act to make the provision of the new Act workable and functional unless and until it is superseded by any notification issued under the provision of the new Act. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted that would mean that notification dated 10.5.1979 issued under the provisions of the old Act shall be deemed to have been issued under the provisions of the new Act whereas sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the same provides that only provisions of the new Act can be made applicable by the State Government by issuing a notification under it. It is hard to understand that the notification dated 10.5.1979 issued under the provisions of the old Act by which provisions of the old Act were made applicable to all the Municipal Towns of the State of Rajasthan can be deemed to have been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the new Act. Even the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners support the view that only such notification which has been issued under the provision of the repealed Act to make the provision of the same workable and functional is saved under the provision of Section 24 of the Indian General Clauses Act or Section 27 of the Act and not such notification by which the provisions of the repealed Act were made applicable.