GIRJASHANKER Vs. LALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has come before this Full Bench because Mr. Justice Bapna had some doubt about the validity of the extension of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX) of 1949, which was made by a notification on the 20th of June, 1953. As the matter was of considerable importance, he referred the case to a Division Bench. Thereupon, a Full Bench was ordered to be constituted in view of the importance of the point involved. Before, however, a Full Bench could meet an Ordinance No. III of 1954 was promulgated on the 15th of February, 1954., making certain amendments in Ordinance No. IX of 1949. Then Ordinance No III of 1954, was replaced by the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Amendment Act (No X) of 1954. The question of validity therefore of the extension made in June 1953 by a notification has to be considered keeping in view there two enact-ments of 1954.

(2.) THE position would be clearer if we give a brief history of this legislation namely the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance (No. IX) of 1949. It was passed and promulgated on the 21st of June, 1949, and sec. 1, sub-sec. (3) stated that it would come into force at once, and remain in force for a period of two years unless this period was further extended by the Rajpramukh by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette On the 18th of June, 1951, the term of the Ordinance was extended for another two years. THEn on the 20th of June 1953, followed another notification extending the term of the Ordinance for a further period of one year Doubts were raised as to the validity of these two extensions. THE first (extension came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Sukhlal vs. Revenue Board Rajasthan(l), and it was held that the extension was valid. THEn came another case before another Division Bench, namely Sadaria vs. Rajasthan Board of Revenue(2). In that case, Bapna J. adhered to the view that he had taken in Sukhlal's case(l), namely that the extension was valid, while Sharma J. was doubtful of he validity of even that extension, but agreed with the final order in view of the earlier decision in Sukhlal's case(l) which was held to be binding. THEn came another case, namely Ram Deo vs. THE State of Rajasthan (reported 1955 RLW 368) by another Bench. In that case, it was held that the extension of the Ordinances by Notification dated the 20th of June, 1953, was not valid, But, as by the time that case came to be decided Ordinance No. III of 1954 and Act No. X of 1954 had already come into force, it was held that in view of these two enactments, Ordinance No. IX of 1949 must be deemed to be in force for a period of seven years from the 21st of June, 1949. THE came Laxmichand vs. the State of Rajasthan (reported 1955 RLW 376) decided on the 24th of November, 1954, to which one of us was a party. In that case the decision in Ramdeo's case was approved and Sharma J., who was doubtful about the validity of the extension of 1951, concurred in the view that because of Ordinance No III of 1954, and Act No. X of 1954, the matter of extension by notifications in 1951 and 1953 had lost all force, and that Ordinance No. IX of 1946 must be held to be valid for seven years from the date of its coming into force, namely the 21st of June, 1949.