MISHRILAL Vs. SHIV CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) LEARNED counsel has raised two contentions. His first contention is that the provisions of Sec. 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 as amended by the Amending Act of 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are not retrospective so as to apply to appeals pending at the time when the Amending Act of 1976 came into force. The relevant portion of sub. sec. (2) of sec. 14 reads as under : - "14 (2)-No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 shall be pissed if the court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant greater hardships would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. . " In my view the provisions of the emended sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 14 would clearly be attracted to perdign appeals as well, in asmuch as it would be the decree that would be passed by the appllate court, which will be the final decree in the case and after the appeal is decided the decree passed by the (rial court will necessarily merge in the decree passed by the appellate court. This view, which I am inclined to take, that the provisions of sec. 14 (2) are applicable to appeals which were pending on the date when the amerded sub. sec. came into force or were filed thereafter, has also been taken in three decisieds of this Court in Prabha Sbanker vs. Smt. Rukmani (1), (AIR 1976 Raj. 17) M/s. Bahirumal Basdev vs. Lalit Kishore (2) (S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 214 of 1975, decided on March 9, 1976) and M/s. Budharmal Nauranglal vs. Garni Shanker (3) (Civil Second Appeal No. 262 of 1974, decided on Feb. , 10, 1976) I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid three cases in this respect. The first contention of the learned counsel is, therefore, repelled.