POONARAM Vs. HASTIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an execution second appeal by the judgment-debtors against an order of the executing court holding that the decree for eviction passed against them on 21. 1. 63 could be executed. The order was confirmed on appeal by the Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur.

(2.) THE decree holders-respondents brought a suit for ejectment against the appellants on the ground of more than 3 defaults which was decreed by the trial court on 21. 1. 63. At the time of the filing of the suit 5 months' rent was in arrears. THE decree was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge on 21. 7. 64 and the second appeal was dismissed by this Court on 11th August, 1964. On 15. 9. 64 the present execution application was filed. THE decree-holders were however not able to obtain possession till 9. 6. 65 when the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 was amended by Act No. 12 of 1965. Sec. 13 (1) (a) of the ammended Act runs as follows : - "notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied - (a) that, the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months - On 6. 8. 65 the appellants filed an application that they could not be evicted in execution of the decree as it was not based on their being in arrears for six months and they were ready and willing to pay the rent. In the application dated 6. 8. 65 the appellants stated that they had paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards the decree to the decree-holders and prayed that the payment may be certified. On 21. 8. 65 the executing court directed the appellants to deposit the arrears of rent and costs etc. in court by 23. 9. 65 and directed the application dated 6. 8. 65 to be put up for decision on 24. 9. 65. No amount was deposited in court by the judgment-debtors although as appears from their subsequent application dated 21. 9. 65, a sum of about Rs. 700/- was due towards the decree even after allowing the sum of Rs. 1000/- which they alleged that they had paid to the decree-holders towards this decree. On 24. 9. 65 the decree-holders filed, an application in which it was stated that the appellants had not paid them anything under the present decree.

(3.) RELIEF was given to tenants against whom suits, appeals, or revision applications were pending or had not become time barred. RELIEF was also provided to tenants against whom decrees for eviction based on the ground of non-payment of rent were passed on or after 21st March, 1965 but before the commencement of the amending Act in which no appeal, or application for revision had been preferred or made. The contention is that if the Legislature intended to give retrospective relief to tenants against whom decrees for eviction were passed before 21st March, 1965 but who had not been evicted, the Legislature would have made a specific provision for it in sec. 13-A.