- (1.) THE present writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner -defendant, challenging the order dated 08.08.2012, passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the court below") in Civil Suit No.44/2002, whereby the court below has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner -defendant under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment in the written statement, and also under Order VIII Rule 1 -A (3) of CPC for taking certain documents on record.
(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent -plaintiff has filed the suit being No.44/2002 against the petitioner -defendant for the determination of the standard rent and for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises, under the provisions contained in Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent And Eviction) Act 1950, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950"). The petitioner -defendant after the completion of the evidence by both the parties, filed the applications on 04.11.2011 seeking amendment in the written statement under Order VI Rule 17, and seeking production of documents under Order VIII Rule 1 -A (3) which applications have been dismissed by the court below vide the impugned order.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.K. Agarwal, that though the suit has been filed under the provisions contained in the old Act of 1950, the same should have been decided as per the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. According to him, as per Section 6 of the Act, 2001, the rent should have been determined as per the formula indicated in the said Section, irrespective of any agreement having been entered into between the parties. He further submitted that the respondent -plaintiff had filed another suit in respect of the premises adjacent to the premises of the petitioner -defendant under the New Act of 2001, and there would be anomaly in the fixation of the standard rent with regard to the two premises which are adjacent each other, if the petitioner is not permitted to amend the written statement and produce the documents with regard to the other suit. However, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Garg for the respondent -plaintiff placing reliance on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Bhag Chand Versus Additional District Judge No.5, Kota and Ors., 2009 3 RajLW 2081, submitted that the controversy raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has already been set at rest by the Full Bench, and in view of Section 32(3)(a) of the Act of 2001, the suits and the proceedings filed under the Repealed Act of 1950 have to be continued under the said old Act as if New Act had not been enacted. According to him, the applications having been filed by the petitioner to delay the proceedings, have been rightly rejected by the court below. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned senior counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order passed by the court below, it appears that the respondent -plaintiff has filed the suit under the Act of 1950 for determination of the standard rent, and for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. As rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent, the Full Bench of this Court in case of Bhag Chand Versus Additional District Judge No.5, Kota and Ors. has held interalia that all the suits, applications and other proceedings filed by the party under the old Act of 1950 would be governed by the provisions of the said old Act, despite coming into force of New Act of 2001. The relevant observations made in the said decision are reproduced as under: - "......Sections 6 and 7 of the new Act respectively provide 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 Sections 6 of the Rajasthan General Clause 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 and 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 comparison 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.";