GOYAL, J. - (1.) INSTANT revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 7. 8. 2003 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota in civil misc. appeal No. 83/2002 whereby appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and provisional standard rent was enhanced and fixed as Rs. 2388/- per month.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other material available on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that non- petitioner-plaintiff Bajrang Lal filed a suit for determination of the standard rent and ejectment from the suit property which was with the petitioner-defendants on monthly rent of Rs. 600/- from 15. 10. 1977. It is also contended that learned Trial Court after having due regard to the prevailing rent for similar premises in the same locality, various amenities, and other factors determined the provisional standard rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month instead agreed rent of Rs. 600/- but appellate court enhanced the provisional rent determined by the Trial Court to the tune of Rs. 2388/- from October, 2001 upto September, 2002 and Rs. 2526/- from October, 2002 with the stipulation that thereafter every year 5% rent shall be enhanced till disposal of the suit, which is per se illegal since the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (in short the Act of 2001) are not applicable in this matter as the suit was pending prior to the enforcement of the Act of 2001 and the proceedings under the Raj. Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short the Act of 1950) (old Act) are survived with effect of Section 32 (3) (a) of the New Act of 2001. He has also relied on the judgment delivered by a coordinate bench of this Court in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1227/2003 titled as Prahlad Narain vs. M/s. Chetna Hotels & Properties Ltd. dated 22. 10. 2003. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that First Appellate Court also found that the provisions of old Act of 1950 will be applicable in the case but to make the consistency with the new Act of 2001 on the basis of principles enumerated for the revision of rent in the Act of 2001 provisional standard rent has been determined which cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law. I have considered the rival contentions advanced before me on behalf of the parties. It is not disputed in the instant case that the suit has been filed much prior to the commencement of the new Act of 2001. It is also clear position of law that suit or other proceedings started prior to the commencement of the new Act of 2001, under the Act of 1950 have been saved by repeal and savings clause as incorporated by Section 32 of the Act of 2001. According to this Section, pending application, suit or other proceedings under the repealed Act on the date of commencement of the new Act of 2001 would be governed under the old Act of 1950 and thus, the proceedings for fixation of standard rent pending under the old Act of 1950 on the date of commencement of the new Act of 2001 shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of repealed Act. A coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Prahlad Narain's case (supra), 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. " In the case at hand, learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota enhanced provisional standard rent from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2388/- from October, 2001 and from October, 2002 it was further enhanced for Rs. 2526/- per month with the stipulation that thereafter every year 5% rent shall be enhanced till the disposal of the suit following the parameters provided under Section 6 of the new Act of 2001 for revision of rent in respect of existing tenancies. As discussed hereinbefore, the provisions of new Act of 2001 are not applicable in so far as the matters pending prior to the commencement of the Act of 2001 are concerned. Thus, in the light of the above discussion the impugned judgment dated 7. 8. 2003 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota does not sustain and deserves to be quashed.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is allowed, the judgment of Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Additional District Judge No. 3, Kota with a direction to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the provisions of Section 6 & 7 of the old Act of 1950. .;