2007 (12) TMI 517 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (New Act).
2. Constitutional validity of Section 32(3)(a) of the New Act.
3. Constitutional validity of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (Old Act).
4. Legislative competency and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Interpretation of non obstante clauses and repeal and saving clauses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the New Act:
The petitioners challenged the entire New Act on the grounds of legislative competency and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Marketing Limited v. Punjab National Bank, which clarified that legislation concerning landlord-tenant relationships falls under Entry VI of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. This makes the State legislature competent to enact laws on this subject. The New Act also received the President's assent on 25.2.2003. Thus, the court found the contention of lack of legislative competence to be devoid of force.

2. Constitutional Validity of Section 32(3)(a) of the New Act:
Section 32(3)(a) of the New Act, which includes a non obstante clause saving pending applications, suits, or other proceedings under the Old Act, was examined. The court noted that this provision could lead to anomalies and inconsistencies, especially when two suits-one under the Old Act and another under the New Act-are pending simultaneously. The court harmonized the provisions by holding that the non obstante clause in Section 32(3)(a) should be read with Section 29 of the New Act, which gives overriding effect to the provisions of the New Act. This ensures that the fixation of standard rent or provisional rent under Sections 6 and 7 of the Old Act is governed by the New Act.

3. Constitutional Validity of Section 6 of the Old Act:
The court addressed the validity of Section 6 of the Old Act, particularly after the striking down of Section 6(2) in Khem Chand v. State of Rajasthan. The court observed that the remaining provisions of Section 6 without Sub-section (2) could lead to arbitrary fixation of standard rent. The court found that the legislative intent was to provide a fair mechanism for rent control and that the New Act's provisions should apply to pending cases to avoid inconsistencies and anomalies.

4. Legislative Competency and Article 14:
The court examined whether the New Act violated Article 14 by failing to provide equal protection of laws to the same category of tenants. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Melapur Club v. State of Tamil Nadu and D.C. Bhatia v. Union of India, which upheld legislative classifications based on economic criteria and social justice. The court concluded that the New Act's provisions, including the classification of tenants and the revision of rent, were policy decisions based on social justice and did not violate Article 14.

5. Interpretation of Non Obstante Clauses and Repeal and Saving Clauses:
The court discussed the principles of statutory interpretation, particularly the harmonization of non obstante clauses and repeal and saving clauses. The court emphasized that when a statute is repealed, the court loses jurisdiction over pending suits unless expressly saved by the repealing Act. The court referred to various precedents, including Northern India Caterers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Vishwant Kumar v. Madanlal Sharma, to support its reasoning. The court concluded that the non obstante clause in Section 32(3)(a) should be harmonized with Section 29 of the New Act to avoid inconsistencies and ensure that the New Act's provisions apply to pending cases.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, and its provisions, including Section 32(3)(a). The court directed that pending cases for the fixation of standard rent or provisional rent under the Old Act should be governed by the New Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of harmonizing statutory provisions to avoid anomalies and ensure justice.