V.D. Misra, J.
(1) This is a revision by a tenant under section 30 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act) directed ag
(2) The landlord had completed construction of hou No. 19/4, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, after 9th June, 1955. On the 4th July, 1958. the ground floor of this house was let out for the first time to M/s General Auto Parts Company at the rate of Rs. 247/8 per month which included Rs. 22/8 as house tax. On 29th December, 1958/the tenant applied under section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act for the fixation of standard rent of the premises Before it could be decided the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 1958 Act) came into force on 9th February, 1959. The trial Court held that in view of the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of 1958 Act, the agreed rent shall be the standard rent of the premises for five years. The tenant rreferred an appeal against this order and the learned District Judge held that the trial Court should have also determined the standard rent of the premises to be effective after a period of five years from the date the house, was let out to the tenant and thus remanded the case back.
(3) The learned Counsel far the tenant contends that proviso to subsection (2) of section 57 of 1958 Act shows that the standard rent should be determined under the provisions of 1952 Act and no regard should be given to the provisions of 1958 Act inasmuch as section 6(2)(b) of 1958 Act brings out a radical change in the old Act and takes away the right which had accurued to the tenant to have the standarad rent fixed under the old Act. In order to appreciate the contontion of the contention of the learned counsel, the relevant provisions of the Act may be re-pioduced. Section 57(2) reads as under :-
"Notwithstanding such repeal, all suits and other prcceedirgs under the said Act pending at the commencement to this Act before any court or other authority shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the 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."
Section 6(2)(b) of 1958 Act is as follows :-
"In the case of any premises, whether residential or not, constructed on or after the 9th day of June, 195S, including premises constructed after the commencement of this Act the annual rent calculated with reference to the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant when such premises were first let out shall be deemed to be the standard rent for a period of five years from the date of such letting out."
The contention is that whereas under the old Act, the tenant has a right to get the standard rent fixed, section 6(2)(b) provides that in respect of the premises constructed on or after 9th June, 1955, the rent at which they were first let out shall be deemed to be the standard rent turn a period of five vears from the date of such letting. There was no such restriction under the 1952 Act and the new restrictions brought in by the above-mentioned sub-section (2)(b) of section 6 have the effect of taking away the right which had accrued to him under the old Act. The proviso to section 57(2) of 1958 Act requires the Court only to have regard to the provisions of the new Act in cases where the proceedings were pending under the 1952 Act at the time the 1958 Act cams into force. In this connection, he relies upon Karam Singh Sobti v. Partap Chand1, in which the Supreme Court, while discussing the effect of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 57 of 1958 Act, held as under :-
"We think that the first proviso must be read harmoniously with the substantive provisions contained in sub-section (2) and the only way of harmonising the two is to accept the view which the Punjab High Court has accepted, namely that the word, ''shall have regard to the provisions of this Act" merely mean that "where the new Act. has slightly modified or clarified the previous provisions, these modifications and clarifications should be applied'. We see no other way of harmonising sub-section (2) with the first proviso thereto."
(4) Thus, the only question to be determined is whether the new Act "has slighdy modified or clarified the previous provisions" or has brought in radical changes in the old Act.
(5) The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to section 39 of 1952 Act in support of his contention that the Legislature finding that the building activity in Delhi at that time had not come up to the expected level had given what was known as a 'rent holiday' to the builders vide section 39 of the old Act. This is as under -
"39. Exemption of certain premises from the operation of the Act :- All premises, the construction of which is completed after the 1st of June, 1951, but before the expiry of three years from the commencement of this Act, shall be exempted from the op?ration of all the provisions of this Act, for a period of seven years from the date of such completion."
The rent holiday' was given in respect of the construction which was completed after the 1st day of June, 1951 but before the expiry of 3 years from the commencement of the old Act, i. e.. 8th June, 1955. Section 6(2)(b) of 1958 Act provides another 'rent holiday' for the buildings constructed on or after the 9th June, 1955. This holiday was for a period of five years from the date of the letting out of those buildings. It is tiue that under section 39 of the old Act, a period of seven years 53 was given as the 'rent holiday', but in the new Act, the period was reduced to five years. However, one thing is clear that by 1958 Act the Legislature intended to give the so-called 'rent holiday' to persons who constructed the building after 9th June, 1955, immediately after the date had expired under the old Act of 1952. In this respect, section 6(2)(b) had a retrospective operation. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that any radical change was sought to be introduced by the Legislature by bringing in the new Act. In fact, the Legislature under the new Act was continuing the old policy of rent holiday' in view of the acute shortage of houses which was prevalent in Delhi at that time and section 6(2)(b) read with section 57(2) shows that it is the duty of the Courts to give effect to the provisions of section 6(2)(b) and not to decide the cases under the provisions of the 1952 Act disregarding the 1958 Act completely.
(6) The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to an unreported judgment of this Court in Hafiz Zahir Uddin Ahmed v. Pandit Shib Narain, Civil Revision No. 383-D/62, decided on 21st August, 1969. A similar question had arisen before the Court and it was held-
"REGARDto these provisions of the 1958 Act could have been given by the Court while fixing the date under s. 8(7) of the 1952 Act from which the standard rent fixed by the Court was to have effect by holding that the standard rent so fixed will be effective after the expiry of five years from the date of the first letting of the shop. Such an order would have harmonised the provisions of both the Act gives power to the Court to fix a date from which the standard rent fixed by it is to have effect in respect of all buildings whether constructed belore or after June 9, 1955. Section 6(2)(b) of the 1958 Act deals only with buildings constructed on or after June 9, 1955 and provides that in respect of such buildings standard rent shall be the agreed rent at the time of the first letting for a period of five years from such letting. In my view, the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the 1958 Act constitute only a slight modification in the previous provisions contained in section 8(7) of the 1952 Act."
I am in respectful agreement with the observations of the learned Judge.
(7) The result is that the revision is dismissed, but in the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The parties are directed to appear before the Senior Subordinate Judge on the 25th September. 1970.