RAJARAM DHANIRAM Vs. RAMSWAROOP SUNDERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent instituted by the appellant against the respondents on the ground that the defendants did not pay rent to the plaintiff nor did they vacate the premises in spite of notice. The trial Judge passed a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent in favour of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court decided all the points raised before it in favour of the plaintiff, but dismissed the suit? for ejectment by giving relief to the defendants under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act because they had deposited rent with the written statement and continued to deposit recurring rent in the appellate Court.

(2.) The plaintiff's grievance is that Section 114 of the T. P. Act must be deemed to be suspended so long as the Accommodation Control Act, which is a special enactment is in force. This, contention is untenable because provisions of the T. P. Act have not been abrogated or pro tanto repealed by the Accommodation Control Act under which certain restrictions have no doubt been imposed on the right of eviction. So far as the eviction of a tenant is concerned, the landlord cannot claim any additional right under the Accommodation Control Act; he has to establish his substantive right of eviction under the provisions of T. P. Act. Section 4 of the Control Act does not furnish any additional ground for ejectment, but only restricts the rights of the landlord as regards eviction.

(3.) However, in my opinion, Section 114 has been misapplied in the present case. That section can be invoked to give relief to a tenant when a lease is determined by the landlord on the ground of forfeiture. Here, the lease was determined by notice. To put it differently, the landlord's right to eviction accrued to him not under Section 111(g) but under Section lll(h) of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 114 does not apply to ejectment under Clause (h) of Section 111,