JUDGMENT : This is a second appeal filed by the original defendant-tenant, under Section 28 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the decree for eviction passed against him and in favour of the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1963 by learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, Mr. N.J. Mankad.

2. The material facts for this second appeal, briefly stated, are as under :

The respondent owns a house in Marine Society, Bhavnagar, which is rented to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. He had filed Civil Suit No. 636 of 1958 to evict the defendant on the ground of personal requirement, but that suit was settled and the defendant continued under a fresh rent note of 1st July, 1959 on the same terms. The respondent filed present Civil Suit No.316 of 1961 against the appellant-defendant to recover possession of the leased premises, arrears of rent and mesne profits, etc. Possession was sought for, initially on several grounds with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. We are concerned with a ground raised by him by a subsequent amendment made in the plaint. He pleaded therein that the suit house was constructed in the year, 1956 A.D. and, therefore, in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, he was entitled to exemption and hence, the provisions of the Act did not apply to the suit house.

3. The learned trial Judge recorded a finding that though the premises had been erected anew after 1st January, 1951, the landlord was not entitled to the exemption clause as the suit premises were again let to the defendant after compromise in the earlier suit on execution of a rent note dated 1st July, 1959. According to the learned trial Judge, this being a second letting of the suit premises after 1st January, 1951, the plaintiff was not entitled to get exemption from the provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, he dismissed the plaintiff's suit for possession with costs in proportion to the relief claimed. Regarding the money-claim, a decree was passed against the defendant for an amount of Rs.395-50 Nps.

4. Against that judgment and decree passed against the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1963 in the District Court at Bhavnagar.

5. The learned District Judge found that the plaintiff was entitled to exemption in view of the provisions of Section 4, sub-section (2) of the Act. According to him, this subsequent letting will not mean that the condition of the premises having been let for the first time on or after 1st January, 1951, is not satisfied. According to the learned District Judge, if the premises were new premises erected on or after 1st January, 1951 and they were let for the first time, on or after 1st January, 1951, such premises were intended to be exempted from the provisions of the Act. It did not matter if such a newly constructed house which was first time let on or after 1st January, 1951, came to be let second time or third time after its construction. He interpreted that section in that manner, observing :

"The object of sub-section (2) is clearly to encourage construction of new premises by allaying the fears of the landlords and assuring them that they would not be subjected to the rigours of the Rent Control Act so far as their houses constructed after 1st January, 1951 are concerned. The provision is clearly intended to encourage house-building activity which would also be for the benefit of the general body of tenants. If the Legislature had intended that the Act should not apply to premises erected on or after 1st January, 1951, it is difficult to appreciate that it should have further intended that the benefit would be lost as soon as the first letting ends and the newly constructed house is let for the second time after its construction. To say this is not merely to interpret sub-sec. (2) with reference to the real, apparent or supposed intention of the legislature. Even the words used

Click Here to Read the rest of this document