Skip to content


Panna Lal Vs. Balbir Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 1967
Judge
Reported in1969WLN284
AppellantPanna Lal
RespondentBalbir Singh and ors.
Cases ReferredJ.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Excerpt:
.....section 13 a inserted--whether section 13 (4) applies to suit.;where there is conflict between a special provision & a general prevision, the special provision prevails over the general provision and the latter applies only to such cases which are not covered by the special provision.;the present suit was a pending suit when the amending act came into force and section 13 a is applicable to it and consequently 13(4) cannot apply to it. - 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 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested..........a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.3. the relevant part of section 13a runs as follows:special provisions relating to pending and other matters--notwithstanding anything in section 13, sub-section (1)(a), or sub-section (4) and the proviso thereto or sub-section (5) as they existed before the commencement of the amending act.-(a) no court shall, in any proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the amending act, pass any decree in favour of a landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, if the tenant applies under clause (b) and pays to the landlord, or deposits in court, within such time such aggregate of the amount or rent in arrears interest thereon and full costs of the suit as may be directed by the court under and in accordant with that.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This is a miscellaneous appeal by one of the tenants against an order of remand passed by the appellante court.

2. The plaintiff-landlords brought a suit for ejectment against Pannalal, appellant and the other tenant Sanwalsingh, respondent No. 14, on 3. 4. 65, on the ground of default in the payment of rent under Section 13(1)(a) of the Rajasthan. Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act. Summons of the suit was served on Pannalal appellant on 7.5.65 and on Sanwalsingh, respondent, on 29.4.65. The date of first hearing in the suit was 28.7.65. On 9.6.65. Act No. 12 of 1965 came into force. By this Act Section 13 was amended and another Section 13-A was added. Section 13 (4) runs as follows:

In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the tenant shall, on the first day of hearing or on or before such date as the court may, on an application made to it, fix in this behalf, or within such time, not exceeding two months, as maybe extended by the court, deposit in court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid, for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent there to upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payments is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six percent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable up to the date of deposit and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.

3. The relevant part of Section 13A runs as follows:

Special Provisions relating to pending and other matters--Notwithstanding anything in Section 13, Sub-section (1)(a), or Sub-section (4) and the proviso thereto or Sub-section (5) as they existed before the commencement of the amending Act.-

(a) no court shall, in any proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the amending Act, pass any decree in favour of a landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, if the tenant applies under Clause (b) and pays to the landlord, or deposits in court, within such time such aggregate of the amount or rent in arrears interest thereon and full costs of the suit as may be directed by the court under and in accordant with that clause.

(b) in every such proceeding, the court shall, on the application of the tenant made within, thirty days from the date of commencement of the amending Act, notwithstanding any order to the contrary., determine the amount of rent in arrears upto the date of the order as also the amount of interest thereon at six percent per annum and costs of the suit allowable to the landlord; and direct the tenant to pay the amount so determined within such time, not exceeding ninety days, as may be fixed by the court and no such payment being made within the time fixed as aforesaid, the proceeding shall be disposed of as if the tenant had not committed any default;

4. On 28.7.65 the tenants filed an application under Section 13(4) intimating that they were willing to deposit all the arrears of rent due to the landlords upto the date of the order of determination and praying that on payment of arrears of rent the suit against them may be dismissed. This, application was opposed on behalf of the landlords on the ground that Section 13A was applicable to the case as the suit was pending when Act No. 12 of 1965 came into force and an application should have been made by the tenants within one month of the commencement of the amending Act namely by 8.7.65 and as this was not done the court had to proceed with the suit and dispose of it on merits.

5. The trial court overruled the objection of the landlords and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge held that Section 13A contained a special provision relating to pending suits and where this special provision was applicable Section 13(4) had no application. He relied on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh : (1961)ILLJ540SC .

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the decision of the learned District Judge is correct. In the case referred to above their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that where there is conflict between a special provision and a general provision, the special provision prevails over the general provision and the latter applies only to such cases which are not covered by the special provision.

7. The present suit was a pending suit when the amending Act came into force and Section 13A is applicable to it and consequently Section 13(4) cannot apply to it. I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.


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