LexVISHWANT KUMAR versus MADAN LAL SHARMA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
VISHWANT KUMAR
v.
MADAN LAL SHARMA AND ANR.
MARCH I 8, 2·004
B
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.)
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ; Sections 4 & 9-Amending Act 57 of
1988; Section J(c)-Application by tenant before Rent Controller for fixation
_{.
C of standard rent-During pendency of the application, Amending Act
introduced-Rent Controller dismissing the application being infructuous on
ground of subsequent amendment-Tribunal and High Court concurring with
the Rent Controller-Correctness of-Held, right of a tenant under the Act is
a protective right and not a vested right-Hence after amendment, the right
of tenant would cease to exist.
D
Appellant-tenant entered into an agreement with respondent-
landlord in 1976 for taking on rent a shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 5000.
In 1978, the appellant-tenant filed an application before Rent Controller
y ·
for fixation of standard rent to the shop under section 9 of the Delhi Rent
E Control Act, 1958 seeking to fix the monthly rent at Rs. 1350 per month
instead of Rs. 5000. which was excessive. During the pendency of the
application before the Rent Controller, on 1.12. I 988, section 3(c) was
inserted by an Amending Act providing that the provisions of the Rent
Act would not apply to the premises whose monthly rent exceed Rs. 3500.
The respondent-landlord moved an application before the Rent Controller
F seeking dismissal of the standard rent application of the appellant in view
of the amended section 3(c). The Rent Controller dismissed the standard
rent application holding it to be infructuous in view of the amended section.
Tribunal and High Court dismissed the appeals of the appellant-tenant.
In appeal to this Court, the appellant-tenant contended that section
G 4 of the Rent Act conferred a substantive right to the tenant not to pay
rent in excess of the standard rent; that the !is commenced on the date of
application to the Rent Controller for fixation of standard rent; that the
rights of the appellant got crystallized under the Act on making an
application; that the Rent Act being a beneficial legislation, the
H
254
.)
1
'
VISHWANT KUMAR v. M.L. SHARMA
255
Amendment Act, while inserting section 3(c) to the Rent Act, did not intend A
to obliterate the rights vested in the appellant on the date of the
application; that the appellant cannot be made to suffer on account of
court's delay by relying on the doctrine of "Actus curiae neminem gravabit";
and that the right not to pay rent in excess of the standard rent did not
depend on its fixation by the Rent Controller and that it was on incident B
of tenure and consequently it was not in the nature of protective right.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: I. I. There is a difference between a mere right and what is
right acquired or accrued. Under section 4 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, C
1958, the tenant is not bound to pay rent in excess of the standard rent
whereas under section 9, he has a right to get the standard rent fixed. Such
a right is the right to take advantage of an enactment and it is not an
accrued right. There is a vast difference between rights of a tenant under
the Rent Act and the rights of the landlord. The right of a statutory tenant
to pay rent not exceeding standard rent or the right to get standard rent D
fixed are protective rights and not vested rights. On the other hand, the
landlord has rights recognized under the law of Contract and Transfer
of Property Act which are vested rights and which are suspended by the
provisions of the Rent Act but the day the Rent Act is withdrawn, the
suspended rights of the landlord revive. 1257-G-H; 258-A; C-DI
D.C Bhatia v. Union of India, !199511 SCC 104; Thyssen S1ahlunion
GMBH v. Steel Authority 1J( India Ltd, 119991 9 SCC 334 and Parripati
Chandrasekhar Rao & Sons v. Alapati Jalaiah, 1199513 SCC 709, referred
to.
1.2. The object of the Amending Act, 1988 was to rationalize the
Rent Act whereby the protection given to the richer tenant is withdrawn.
The object of the Amendment Act, 1988 is to strike a balance between
E
F
the claims of the landlord who get meagre rent particularly in times of
inflation and the tenants who equally need protection from arbitrary
eviction. In the circumstances, in view of section 3(c) as amended, the G
application for fixation of standard rent filed by the tenant on 11.4.1978
has been correctly dismissed as infructuous. 1258-D-fl
A
AmbalExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.