Skip to content


Mehta Mansuk Lal Vs. Modi Fateh Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 21/1976
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)69
AppellantMehta Mansuk Lal
RespondentModi Fateh Lal
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....before passing a decree for eviction against the defendant.;(b) rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950 - section 13a--amendment ordinance, 1375--tenant is entitled to deposit of arrears of rent with interest & cost and get the order of striking our defence set aside.;under section 18-a of the act no. xvii of 1950 the tenant is now entitled to deposit the an ears of tent with interest, costs and on doing so he is entitled to get the order of striking out the defence set aside. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13..........both of them are entitled to the benefit of section 14(2) of the rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950 as amended by the ordinance no. 26 of 1975.3. a, perusal of the above mentioned section reveals that the effect of amendment is that previously if the landlord required the demised premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of himself or his family, he could have obtained a decree for eviction of tenant, but after the amendment the court will have to further examine the question of comparative greater hardship between the landlord and the tenant before passing a decree for eviction against the defendant. under section 13a of the act no. xvii of 1950 the tenant is now entitled to deposit the at rears of rent with interest, costs and on doing so.....
Judgment:

M.L. Shrimal, J.

1. This is the defendant-tenant's second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of premises situated in Partapgarh.

2. The ejectment was sought on the ground of reasonable, bonafide and personal necessity as well as default in payment of rent. The appellant has filed an application on October 27, 1975 praying that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 13-A of the Act No. XVII of 1950 as Amended by the provisions of Ordinance No. 26 of 1875 He has further urged that the judgment and decree of the first appellate court is liable to be set aside as it is based on the eiound of striking put the defence for nonpayment of rent, fifth the arties further prayed that both of them are entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 as amended by the Ordinance No. 26 of 1975.

3. A, perusal of the above mentioned section reveals that the effect of amendment is that previously if the landlord required the demised premises reasonably and bonafide for the use and occupation of himself or his family, he could have obtained a decree for eviction of tenant, but after the amendment the court will have to further examine the question of comparative greater hardship between the landlord and the tenant before passing a decree for eviction against the defendant. Under Section 13A of the Act No. XVII of 1950 the tenant is now entitled to deposit the at rears of rent with interest, costs and on doing so he is entitled to get the order of striking out the defence set aside Both the patties agree that the impugned judgment and decree is not maintainable in view of the amended provisions of law.

4. The result is that the appeal is allowed, the decrees of the courts below are set aside, and the case is remanded back to the trial court with a direction to determine the arrears of rent, interest and full costs of the suit and direct the appellant to deposit the same within such time not exceeding 90 days as may be fixed by the trial court. The plaintiff will be free to amend the plaint and the defendant also will be free to amend the written statement. Thereafter, the parties may lead evidence, if they so desire on the newly framed issues by the trial court. the evidence, recorded during the previous original trial shall be, subject to just exception, the evidence during the trial after remand. In the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant shall be liable to pay costs of the plaintiff throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //