Sukh Lal Singh and Another vs Joginder Singh and Another

Dulat, J.—The dispute in this case concerns the fixation of fair rent for a shop in Patiala which belongs to the petitioners and is let to the respondents. The proceedings started with an application by the respondents for fixing the fair rent under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The basic rent, according to that Act, had to be fixed with reference to the rent of similar premises prevailing during the year 1938. The tenants were actually paying Rs. 42/- per mensem for the shop but claimed that the basic rent and therefore, the fair rent including the permissible increase would be much less. The Rent Controller went into the evidence and found that the fair rent for the shop in question would be, according to the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Rs. 16.84 N.P. per month and he made an order accordingly. It was contended on behalf of the landlords that the fair rent had previously been fixed for the very shop in question as Rs. 60/- per month and that decision was binding, being a decision inter partes. The Rent Controller, did not accept this plea. On appeal by the landlords, the Appellate Authority, taking the same view, held that although previously the rent of the shop had been fixed at Rs. 60/- per month, that fixation was of no consequence because that rent had been fixed under the provisions of another statue, namely, the Pepsu Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, which was in force, in Patiala that time, while the present application was under the past Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act which had been extended to Patiala in May 1958, the basis in the two statutes being different. On this view of the matter the Appellate Authority declined to interfere with the order of the Kent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The landlords have now filed a revision petition in this Court against the decision.

It is admitted that prior to May 1958 rents in the erstwhile territory of Pepsu were to be fixed under the Pepsu Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, under which Ordinance fair rent had to be fixed with reference to the basic year 1947. The previous dispute had arisen under that Ordinance and rent was fixed at Rs. 60/- per month by a competent officer and that decision was admittedly binding under the Pepsu Ordinance. As I have said, in May 1958 the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was extended to Patiala, and the previous Ordinance in force there was repealed and the repealing and saving clause, contained in section 6 of the Punjab Laws (Extension No. 4) Act (18 of 1958) said this-

If immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is in force in the transferred territories any law corresponding to any of the enactments or rules, regulations, notifications, orders and bylaws made, an4 directions or instructions issued, thereunder, extended to those territories by section 4, that law, including the enactments specified in Schedule III, shall on the commencement of this Act, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, stand repealed:

Provided that such repeal shall not affect-

(a) the previous operation of any law so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under any law so repealed; or

* * * *

This clause expressly saves the operation of previous decision made under the previous statute, according to learned counsel for the petitioner and it is urged that it was not open to the Rent Controller under the new Act, that is, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to reopen the matter. There is force in this contention. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the basis of the East Punjab Act extended to the erswhile Pepsu area in May 1958 is entirely different from the previous statute in force in the Pepsu area, and the argument, therefore, is not entirely devoid of force that the Legislature by changing the very basis of fair rent did intend the re-opening of the previous fixation of cents. The question is of considerable importance and is likely to arise repeatedly in connection with premises in the erstwhile Pepsu territory, and I consider it proper, therefore, that the matter should be authoritatively decided by a larger Bench I would accordingly refer this revision petition to a larger Bench for decision subject to the orders of my Lord, the Chief Justice.