Skip to content


Kundan Lal Vs. Hanuman Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 299 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1975WLN(UC)434
AppellantKundan Lal
RespondentHanuman Das
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
rajasthan premises (control of rent and eviction) act, 1950 - section 13a as amended by rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) ordinance, 1975 defence struck off--defaulter given more protection by the amending ordinance--revision accepted and case sent back for determination of arrears of rent, interest and costs. - .....(4) and the provision there to or sub-section (5), as they existed before the commencement of the amending ordinance.' the expression 'notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this act, as it existed before the commencement of the amending ordinance or in any other law' shall be substituted;(ii) in clauses (a), (b), and (c) for the expression 'amending act', wherever occurring, the expression ''amending ordinance' shall be substituted;(the rest of the clauses are not relevant for the purpose of the decision of this revision petition.)3. after the amendment section 13a reads as follows:notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this act as it existed before the commencement of amending ordinance or in any other law.(a) no court shall, in any proceeding pending on the date of.....
Judgment:

Kalyan Dutta Sharma, J.

1. This is an application in revision against the order of the District Judge, Bikaner, dated 5-3-1973, by which the order of learned Munsiff, Bikaner, dated 3-11-1972 striking out the defence of the petitioner in civil suit for ejectment, was confirmed.

2. This revision petition came up today for hearing before this court, The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed an application that the revision petition may be allowed and the orders of both the courts below may be set a side in view of the recent amendment in Section 13A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The amendment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner reads as follows:

(i) for the expression ''notwithstanding anything in Section 13, Sub-section (1)(a) or Sub-section (4) and the provision there to or Sub-section (5), as they existed before the commencement of the amending ordinance.' the expression 'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, as it existed before the commencement of the amending Ordinance or in any other law' shall be substituted;

(ii) in Clauses (a), (b), and (c) for the expression 'amending Act', wherever occurring, the expression ''amending Ordinance' shall be substituted;

(The rest of the clauses are not relevant for the purpose of the decision of this revision petition.)

3. After the amendment Section 13A reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act as it existed before the commencement of amending Ordinance or in any other law.

(a) no court shall, in any proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the amending Ordinance pass any decres 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 aggregate of the amount of rent in arrears, interest thereon and full cost of the suit as may be directed by the court under and in accordance with that clause;

(b) in every such proceeding, the Court shall, on the application of the tenant made with in thirty days from the date of commencement of the amending Ordinance, 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 per cent 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 ninty days, as may be fixed by the court and on such payment being made within the time fixed as aforesaid, the proceeding shall be disposed of as if tenant had not committed any default.

(The rest of the clauses are not relevant for the purpose of decision of this revision-petition, hence not quoted),

4. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner also admitted before me that in view of the referred to above amendment the revision petition may be accepted and impugned orders may be set aside and the case may be sent back to the court with the direction to determine the arrears of rent, interest and full costs of the suit, and direct the petitioner to deposit the rent within such time not exceeding ninty days as may be fixed by the court.

5. Consequently, the revision-petition is accepted and the impuged order of the learned District, Judge, Bikaner, dated 5-3-1973 & the order of the Munsiff, Bikaner, dated 3-11-1972, are set aside and the case is sent back to the Munsiff, Bikaner, for determination of arrears of rent, interest thereon and full costs of the suit and for directing the petitioner to deposit the amount if due, within such time not exceeding ninty days as directed by the court. No order as to costs.


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