- (1.) THIS reference by a Division Bench of the Board arises out of an appeal filed by the defendants against the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 14-4-1955 in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for Svt. 2006, 2007 and 2008 which was decreed against them by the trial court and upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur. The reference has been worded as below: "whether sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating Act, 1951 is applicable to rents which fell due prior to the passing of this Act. "
(2.) THE learned counsel for the parties addressed the court at length on the point under reference. We have also carefully perused the record of the case. THE learned counsel for the appellants has argued that although the respondents filed the suit for arrears of produce rent which fell due prior to the passing of the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulation Act, 1951, yet in view of sec. 4 of the Act they were not entitled to recover as produce rent a portion exceeding one-sixth of the gross produce. It was also urged that this enactment was passed by the legislature with a view to setting at rest all disputes respecting the share recoverable by landholders as produce rent and that the maximum extent of such share was fixed as one-sixth of the gross produce to give relief to the tenants, He therefore emphasised that this act was retrospective in effect and to use the wordings of sec. 4 of the Act 'notwithstanding any custom usage or practice to the contrary or anything contained in any law, enactment, rule order or instrument,' the respondents were not entitled to recover any thing more than l/6of the produce. THE learned counsel for the respondent repelled this contention and argued that there is no provision in the Act to suggest that the legislature expressly or by implication desired that this Act should be given a retrospective effect and unless the legislature itself so directs either express sly or by necessary implication, an Act cannot be held to have a retrospective effect. It is also urged that the claim of the respondents for arrears of produce rent was based on an agreement executed by the appellant and that it was rightly decreed by both the lower courts on the basis of the rights which accrued to the respondents prior to the passing of the Act. We have given our best attention to the point involved in the case and referred to us by our brothers in the Division Bench. Reading between the lines, the Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating Act, 1951 which came into operation on the 2nd June, 1951 does not contain any provision which could suggest expressly or by necessary implication that any right or liability arising out of a jural relation constituted before this new law came into force, or created by a jural fact or event taking place before the new law came into force, or any relief or remedy in respect of that right or liability would be affected by this new Act. It has been held in A. I. R. 1951 Orissa 105 that - "in the absence of anything in an Act to show that it is to have a retrospective operation it would not be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law applicable to a claim when the Act is passed. " In A. I. R. 1955 Calcutta 410, also it was laid down as a rule of law that it is fundamental that no statute is to be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in terms of the Act, or arises by necessary and distinct implication, Where an enactment alters both the substantial rights and obligations of the parties as well as the procedure to enforce them, the intention of the legislature would seem fairly clear, namely that the old rights and obligations are still to be determined by the old procedure and that only the new rights or obligations are to be dealt with by the new procedure In A. I. R. 1954 Patna 596 it was observed that "it is a fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication. " Thus we have to examine the provisions of Rajasthan Produce Rent Regulating Act, 1951 with a view to determine as to whether anything is contained therein to show that they were intended to have retrospective operation. The title of the Act shows that it is an Act to regulate the recovery of produce rents. The term 'produce Rent' is defined as meaning whatever is payable in kind on account of the use or occupation of agricultural land or on account of any right in such land. Sec. 4 of the Act runs as follows: - "maximum proportion recoverable as produce rent" - (1) Notwithstanding any custom, usage, or practice to the contrary or anything contained in any law, enactment, rule, order or instrument, no landholder shall recover or be deemed entitled to recover as produce rent for any land, to which this Act applies, a portion exceeding (one-sixth) of the gross produce for each harvest. Explanation.- The expression "gross produce" in this sub-section shall not include the straw chaff bhusa or the dry stalks of a crop or grass or any other natural produce. (2) The maximum laid down in Sub-sec. (l) shall not operate to effect an increase in the proportion of the produce recoverable from a tenant who shall have,at the commencement of this Act, been paying produce or may after such commencement agree with his land-holder to pay rent at a scale lower than such maximum. (3) If for any land, to which this Act applies, cash rent at a customary rate (locally called bighori) is payable in respect of any crop such as cotton, fodder, zeera,dhania, tobacco linseed and the like, such cash rent shall notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (I) and (2) continue to be payable. " Sections 4a, 4b, 4c and 5 of the Act which were inserted by sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating Amendment Act, 1953 are not much relevant for purposes of this reference. The Act is intended to regulate the recovery of rent and not the recovery of arrears of rent. An instalment of rent becomes payable on the day fixed in that behalf and it becomes an arrear on the day following the day it had fallen due. It was open to the legislature to regulate not only the recovery of rent but all arrears of rent as well while passing the Rajasthan Produce Rents Regulating Act. But there is nothing in the Act to suggest that the legislature intended to regulate the recovery of rent which had fallen in arrears when the Act was passed or enforced. The wording in sec. 4 of the Act are not capable of any interpretation other than that the legislature intended to cover only the rents which became payable after the passing of the Act. "no holder shall recover or be entitled as produce rent" obviously relate to rent which shall become recoverable after the enforcement of the Act. In sub-sec. (2) it is laid down that the maximum laid down in sub-sec. (1) of the Act shall not operate to effect an increase in the proportion of the produce recoverable from a tenant who shall have at the commencement of the Act, been paying produce rent at a scale lower than such maximum. In the context it was open to the legislature to enact that the arrears of rent recoverable after the Act shall come into force shall also be governed by this maximum. The result is that the Act refers only to the recovery of rent which is definitely distinct from the recovery of arrears of rent. The Act therefore applies only to rents becoming payable after the enforcement of the Act and is in applicable to arrears that may have fallen due prior to that date. In other words the Act is not retrospective in its effect but only prospective. The reference be answered accordingly. .;