VISHWANT KUMAR versus MADAN LAL SHARMA AND ANR.

VISHWANT KUMAR versus MADAN LAL SHARMA AND ANR.

The right to apply for fixation of standard rent under section 9 is a protective right, not a vested right; after the insertion of section 3(c) by Amending Act 57 of 1988, the Rent Act does not apply to premises with rent exceeding Rs. 3500, thereby rendering the pending application for fixation of standard rent infructuous.

Parties
Appellant Tenant: Vishwant Kumar; Respondents Landlord: Madan Lal Sharma and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment From Appeal Against Delhi High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Delhi Rent Control Act, Standard Rent Fixation, Effect of Amendment on Pending Applications
Rent Law Property Law Delhi Rent Control Act Standard Rent Fixation Effect of Amendment on Pending Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vishwant Kumar

Appellant Tenant

Madan Lal Sharma and Anr.

Respondents Landlord

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment From Appeal Against Delhi High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applies to standard rent applications pending before the court when the Amending Act came into force
  2. 2 Whether the tenant’s right to fixation of standard rent under section 9 is a vested right or merely a protective right

Ratio Decidendi

The right to apply for fixation of standard rent under section 9 is a protective right, not a vested right; after the insertion of section 3(c) by Amending Act 57 of 1988, the Rent Act does not apply to premises with rent exceeding Rs. 3500, thereby rendering the pending application for fixation of standard rent infructuous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Civil appeal dismissed with no order as to costs