Md. Ayoob vs V. Krishna Iyer and Sons

Srinivasan, J.—This petition arises from the order made in an application under S. 4 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

The petitioner was the landlord. He applied for the fixation of a fair rent. The House Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 105 per month. In appeal

the Court of Small Causes confirmed this order. In this revision the order of the lower appellate Court is attacked as incorrect and that the fair rent

fixed is not adequate having regard to the circumstances of the case. Since the filing of this revision petition the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act has been replaced by Madras Act XVIII of 1960 amplifying, generally speaking the general provisions of the Act. In so far as the

fixation of fair rent is concerned, new principles have been laid down in this later Act on the basis of which such fair rent has to be determined.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner observes that in the light of S. 35 of the Act, it would be proper for this Court to set aside the orders of the

Courts below and remand the fair rent application f0r a fresh determination of the question, particularly in view of the enlarged content of S. 4 of

the Act as it now stands. Examining the scheme of S. 35, it is seen that under Sub-S. 2 (a) proceedings taken shall be deemed to be taken under

the corresponding provisions of the new Act. Under Sub-S. 2 (b) any application made under the old Act shall be deemed to have been made

under the corresponding provision of the new Act, Under Sub-S. 2 (a) decisions made are also deemed to have been made under the

corresponding provisions of the new Act. Relying upon these provisions the learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that in disposing of this

revision petition, it would be open to this Court to examine the question in the light of the relevant provisions of the new Act, particularly S. 4. It

seems to me that such a view cannot be sustained. Quite obviously where a new Act replaces an old Act, all pending proceedings suffered to the

extent that they might have been disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old Act. It is not in every case that all such proceedings when

they come up before the higher Courts are liable to be set aside or remanded for fresh disposal in the light of the provisions of the new Act. In

particular with regard to S. 4 of the Act both the old and the new, which deals with the fixation of fair rent, the repeal S. 35 contains a special

provision. Under S. 35, Sub-S. (3) the tenant or the landlord has been given the right to move the Rent Controller, afresh for a fixation of the fair

rent of the building in accordance with the provisions of S. 4 as amended notwithstanding anything contained in sub-S. 2 of S. 35 or in S. 5 of the

Act. That is today the mere fact that a fair rent has been fixed for a building and such decision is in terms of S. 35, Sub-S. (2) deemed to be a

decision under the new Act does not prevent either party to move the Controller once again for fixing the fair rent in accordance with the principles

laid down in S. 4 of the new Act. Clearly therefore such a right having been conferred upon the parties, it would not be proper for this Court to set

aside the orders of the Courts below and remand the petition for re fixation of the fair rent in accordance with the provisions under new S. 4.

To hold otherwise would also lead to practical difficulties. On the fixation of a fair rent, the right to recover rent at the rate fixed would ensure as

from the date of the application or at least from the date of the order. If the original petition itself is to be disposed of in the light of S. 4, as

amended by the new Act, it would mean that the petitioner would have the benefit of the new provision even from the date prior to the enactment;

that is, the provision would be given a retrospective operation which the legislature did not intend to confer. In the result the petition is dismissed.

The right of the petitioner to all the remedies under the new provision as it exists will in the light of Sub-S. 3 to S. 35 remain unaffected. There will

be no order as to costs.