The protection period of five years under Section 14(3) of the Act does not extend to a new landlord, allowing the new landlord to file a suit for eviction within five years of purchase of the property.

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.-This is tenants second appeal filed under Section 100, CPC having lost the battle before the two Courts below, decreeing the suit against him for eviction of shop in question situated at Naya Bazar, Ajmer wherein the said tenant is carrying on business of Gold Smith. The First Appellate Court vide its Judgment dated 29.05.2002 upheld the Judgment and decree dated 25.05.2001 of the learned trial Court.

2. The grounds of eviction were personal bona fide necessity of landlord and default in payment of rent. The trial Court directed the defendant tenant to handover the peaceful possession of the shop in question within two months to the landlord and till then to pay Rs. 85/-per month as rent of the shop.

.3. In the present second appeal, the tenant has raised the question of law claiming it to be a substantial question of law, which was not raised by him before the two Courts below namely;

.(i) Whether the landlord purchasing the suit premises during the tenancy which are used for commercial purposes is entitled to file a suit before the expiry of period of five years, in view of the restrictions contained in Section 14(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

.4. Though, this question has been debated often but it seems that since no clear answer to that has emerged so far that is why this question was allowed to be raised during the course of arguments at the stage of admission this second appeal and arguments on both the sides were heard elaborately.

.5. Section 14 of the Act, is reproduced as under:-“Section 14. Restriction on eviction:-(1) No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause

.(b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall be passed unless the Court is satisfied, after taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, that it is reasonable to allow such eviction. (2). No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall be passed 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 hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it. Where the Court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either to the tenant or to the landlord by passing the decree in respect of a part of the premises, the Court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only.

.(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no suit for eviction from the premises let out for commercial or business purposes shall lie against a tenant on the ground set forth in Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 before the expiry of five years from the date the premises were let out to the tenant.”

6. From a bare perusal of Section 14(3) of the Act, it appears that the non obstante clause contained in Section 14(3) of the Act, prohibiting the suit for eviction and the words are “no suit shall

lie against tenant” is with a view to protect the tenant for a period of five years from the date of commencement of tenancy so that a tenant who is apparently to use such premises for his business purposes is not disturbed at-least for a period of five years so that he has a sort of peace with his business and does not have to move every now and then with his business lock, stock and barrel. Section 14(3) of the Act, also applies only when the landlord claims the eviction for his personal bona fide necessity, the grounds set-out in Section 13(1)(h) of the Act and for no other ground. This also protects inter se balance of convenience between the ground of eviction and necessity of tenant who is to use such premises for his business or commercial purposes. But the question arises as to what is the position when a new person who purchases such tenanted premises from the erstwhile landlord or owner, as to whether a new tenancy between the original tenant and the