VANAND SAVJI TAPU Vs. BAI JAIKUNVER DURLABHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal raises an interesting question of law as to the effect of repeal of Saurashtra Rent Control Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Saurashtra Rent Act) on a suit filed by a landlord against a tenant in respect of premises exempt from the applicability of the Saurashtra Rent Act by reason of Sec. 4(2) of that Act. The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant to recover possession of certain premises let to the defendant. The premises were situate in Bagasara which was formerly part of Saurashtra. The case of the plaintiff was that the premises were new premises erected and let for the first time after 1st January 1951 and therefore by reason of the exemption contained in sec. 4(2) the Saurashtra Rent Act had no application to the premises and the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the premises under the ordinary law of landlord and tenant The plaintiff also pleaded in the alternative that in any event even if The Saurashtra Rent Act were applicable to the premises he reasonably and bona fide required the premises for occupation by himself and the defendant was therefore liable to hand over possession of the premises to him. The defendant resisted the suit and the defence taken by him was that the premises were not new premises erected and let for the first time after 1st January 1951 so as to fall within the exempting provision contained in sec. 4(2) and the Saurashtra Rent Act was therefore applicable to the premises and since the plaintiff did not reasonably and bona fide equire the premises for his personal occupation no decree for possession could be passed against the defendant Now during the pendency of the suit the State Legislature enacted Gujarat Act 57 of 1963 which came into force on 31st December 1963. Gujarat Act 57 of 1963 extended the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act) to the Saurashtra and Kutch areas of the State of Gujarat and introduced sec. 51 in the Bombay Rent Act repealing inter alia the Saurashtra Rent Act. The result was that from and after 31st December 1963 the Saurashtra Rent Act ceased to be applicable to the Saurashtra area of the State of Gujarat and its place was taken by the Bombay Rent Act. Having regard to this change in the law which took place during the pendency of the suit the defendant filed a supplemental written statement contending that even if the premises were exempt from the applicability of the Saurashtra Rent Act by reason of sec. 4(2) of that Act such exemption became meaningless and futile on the repeal of the Saurashatra Rent Act and the Bombay Rent Act being then made applicable the defendant was entitled to claim the protection of sec. 12(1) of the Bombay Rent Act since at the date of the suit he was ready and willing to pay the standard rent of the premises and to observe and perform the other conditions of the tenancy. On these pleadings several issues were raised by the learned trial Judge the main issues being whether the premises were exempt from the applicability of the Saurashtra Rent Act and if they were whether such exemption came to an end on the repeal of the Saurashtra Rent Act and the defendant was entitled to the protection of sec. 12(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the premises were new premises erected and let for the first time after 1st January 1951 and therefore by reason of sec. 4(2) they were exempt from the applicability of the Saurashtra Rent Act and though the Saurashtra Rent Act was repealed the saving provision enacted in sec. 51 of the Bombay Rent Act continued the Saurashtra Rent Act together with the exempting provision in sec. 4(2) for the purpose of decision of the suit and the suit was therefore governed by the ordinary law of landlord and tenant and the defendant was not entitled to the protection of sec. 12(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned trial Judge accordingly passed a decree for eviction against the defendant.

(3.) The defendant being aggrieved by the decree for eviction passed against him preferred an appeal to the District Court Amreli. The learned District Judge disagreed with the view taken by the learned trial Judge and held that though the premises were new premises erected and let for the first time after 1st January 1951 and were therefore exempt from the operation of the Saurashtra Rent Act by reason of sec. 4(2) the Bombay Rent Act became applicable to the premises from 31st December 1963 and the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the protection under sec. 12(1) of the Bombay Rent Act but since the claim of the plaintiff based on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement for personal occupation had not been investigated by the trial Court the learned District Judge remanded the suit to the trial Court for deciding the issue arising under sec. 13(1)(g) and sec. 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act and finally disposing of the suit on those issues.