NAHAR SINGH Vs. KALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises in the following circumstances : Nahar Singh and his son Balwant Singh instituted a suit for ejectment of Kalu, who was tenant of a shop belonging to the plaintiffs, on the ground that the shop was required for the personal use of the plaintiffs, this being one of the grounds mentioned in sec. 13, which took away the protection against ejectment otherwise provided by that section under the Rajasthan Premises ( Control of Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1950. The suit was instituted on 24. 7. 1956. The defendant denied the allegation, but the suit was decreed on 31st May, 1957. The appeal was dismissed on 31st January, 1958, and the revision was rejected on 13. 2. 1958 by the High Court. The landlords put their decree in execution, and obtained possession on 20th February, 1958.

(2.) ON 13th May, 1958, Kalu made an application under sec. 15 of the Act alleg-ing that the landlord had failed to utilise the premises for his personal use within two months of obtaining the possession, and, therefore, Kalu, who was the evicted tenant, should he placed in possession of the premises. The commissioner, who was appointed in the case, reported to the court on the next day that the shop was lying vacant. The landlords filed a reply, in which it was said that the shop needed repairs which were' started on the 1st of March, 1958, and were completed by the middle of May, and the shop was occupied by the landlords on the 21st of May, 1958. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that the shop needed repairs, and, therefore, the landlords cannot be said to have committed default, if they occupied the shop after the period mentioned in sec. 15. He accordingly rejected the application. ON appeal, the learned Civil Judge was of opinion that the language of sec. 15 was imperative, and the period of two months allowed by the section was considered sufficient by the Legislature for petty repairs that may be required, and since the landlords had not occupied the shop within that period, no indulgence could be allowed under the law to the landlords and the tenant was entitled to an order for being placed in possession of the premises. This order was passed on the 9th of March, 1959.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants wants leave to appeal. I do not see good grounds for grant of certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal on behalf of Nahar Singh and Balwant Singh. I, however, certify that the case is a fit one for appeal so far as Bhuri Lal and Thavar Chand are concerned. .