Dulat, J. - (1.) THE five petitions (Civil Revision 612 -D of 1960, Civil Revision 613 -D of 1960, Civil Revision 287 -D of 1961, Civil Revision 358 -D of 1961 and Civil Revision No. 135 -D of 1962) arise out of five suit for the eviction of tenants from certain premises brought under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. While the suits were pending in the trial Court, that Act was repealed and replaced by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. One question, therefore, which arose in these cases, was about the extent to which the provisions of the new Act were to apply: and, because there was some difficulty about understanding the meaning of Section 57 of the new Act which had directed the repeal of the previous Act with certain savings, the learned Single Judges, who first dealt with these revision petitions, felt that a more authoritative opinion of a larger Bench was necessary and in this manner these petitions have come before us.
(2.) THE controversy is about the interpretation of Section 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and that is the only question which has been argued before us, it being understood that after the decision of this question these revision petitions can on the other matters be settled by a Single Bench. The Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, under which the litigation started, had created a complete bar against the eviction of any tenant from any premises. This was provided by Section 13 of that Act. There was, however, a proviso to Section 13, Sub -section (1) which said - "Provided that nothing in this Sub -section shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if the Court is satisfied," and it thereafter mentioned the various grounds which, if satisfied entitled a landlord to evict his tenant. Sub -section (2) of that section further made some modifications to the various grounds. This Act, as I have mentioned, was repealed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959, which set up a different kind of machinery for the eviction of tenants and also made certain alterations in the grounds for eviction. The operative provision in the new Act is to be found in Section 14 which is drafted somewhat on the same lines as Section 13 of the previous Act, but some of the grounds have been changed and some modified. One main difference in the two Acts is this that while under the Act of 1952 relief could be obtained by a landlord by filing an ordinary suit, the new Act of 1958 sets up a Controller and relief under the Act is to be afforded by the Controller, subject to an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal which, in terms, is subject to a second appeal in the High Court on a substantial question of law. Section 57 of the new Act of 1958, whose meaning is in dispute, says this. - 57. (1) The Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, in so far as it is applicable to the Union territory of Delhi, is hereby replead. (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 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 such suit or proceeding 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. Section 54 does not apply to any of the present cases.
(3.) THREE views about the meaning of Section 57 have been put forward before us. The first is that suits for eviction filed under the previous Act of 1952 must be settled in accordance with the provisions of that Act and the provisions of the new Act of 1958 must be ignored. The second view is that as far as eviction suits are concerned, the the provisions of the new Act of 1951 alone are to govern such suits and the provisions of the previous Act of 1952 must be ignored. The third view is that in substance the provisions applicable to such eviction suits are the provisions of the previous Act of 1952, but, while applying those provisions, the court must also take into consideration the provisions of the new Act of 1958, but the Court is not bound by the new provisions. To amplify this view, it is said that if the conflict between the old and the new provisions be serious or irreconcilable, then the new provisions should be ignored but where there is no conflict in substance and the new Act has merely explained the old provisions or slightly modified them without substantially affecting any right, then reasonable assistance may be sought from the new provisions in understanding and applying the old ones. That, of course, sounds somewhat vague and imprecise, but that, it is said, is intentionally so left by the Legislature which has deliberately used the expression "shall have regard to" in the proviso.;