VATAN MAL Vs. KAILASH NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave arising from a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in a second appeal, the question for consideration is whether the appellant will not be entitled to claim the benefit of S. 13-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as has been held by the High Court. It is worthy of mention even here that though the suit for eviction filed by the respondent was pending on the date the Ordinance came to be promulgated, the appellant had no knowledge of the filing of the suit and he came to be served with notice in the suit only after some months after the Ordinance came to be promulgated. The High Court has based its conclusions on two factors viz. (1) no application under S. 13-A had been made by the appellant in the suit filed by the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of commencement of the Ordinance and (2) the suit had been filed before the Amending Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 was issued and hence the proceedings would be governed by the provisions of the unamended Act.

(2.) The facts are not in controversy and are briefly as under. Since 1961 the appellant was a lessee of the respondent in respect of a shop. The agreed rent was Rs. 25/- per mensem and in addition he had also to pay the house tax to the municipality. The rent was increased to Rs. 30/- per mensem with effect from 1-1-1963. On the ground the appellant had committed default in payment of rent for the period 1-2-1966 to 31-12-1966, the respondent filed a suit on 17-1-1967 for eviction. The appellant filed an application under Section 13(4) of the Act (as it stood prior to amendment) for determination of the arrears of rent and the interest payable thereon. The trial Court determined the arrears of rent and the interest payable thereon and on the appellant depositing the same, the suit was dismissed in terms of Section 13(7) of the Act. Thereafter, the appellant went on depositing the rent in court. However, the respondent filed another suit on 21-5-1975 alleging that the appellant had again committed default in payment of rent and should therefore be evicted. The appellant was served with a notice calling upon him to appear in Court on 10-2-1976. Since a copy of the plaint was not sent along with the notice, the appellant was furnished a copy of the plaint on 10-2-1976 and he was granted time till 30-3-1976 to file his written statement. In his written statement the appellant refuted his liability to be evicted on the ground of default in payment of rent. In addition, by way of abundant caution, he filed a petition under Sections 13(3) and 13(4) of the amended Act praying that if in the course of depositing the rent during the long period of eight years from 1967 to 1975 there had been any omission, due to oversight, in depositing the monthy rent, the Court may determine the amount of shortfall and the interest payable thereon and permit him to deposit the same in court.

(3.) Even before the appellant was served with notice in the suit, the Act came to be amended on 25-9-1975 by Amending Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 (later replaced by an Act). The Ordinance provided for a new section vAct). The Ordinance provided for a new section viz. Section 13-A being added to the Act. Section 13-A is in the following terms:-