The Rajasthan Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance, 1948, Section 7, was retrospective in its effect and applied to pending suits and execution applications. The civil Court's jurisdiction was not ousted but was subject to the conditions laid down in Section 7.

BAPNA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is the defendants second appeal in a suit for ejectment against an order of remand.

( 2 ) THE respondent Fakrudin sued the defendant-appellant in the Court of the munsif, Chhoti Sadri for ejectment from a shop alleged to have been leased to the appellant by the respondent on Chait Sud 11 S. 2000. He also claimed Rs. 142/8/- as damages for use and occupation till the date of suit. The suit was instituted on the 31st of December, 1944. The defendant raised several pleas including (1) that the plaintiff was not the owner of the shop in dispute, (2) that the rent note had been got executed by the plaintiff by fraud and (3) that he was not liable to ejectment so long as he was ready and willing to pay the rent.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, an Ordinance was promulgated by H. H. the raj Pramukh of the former Rajasthan known as The United States of Rajasthan buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance, 1948 (No. XXII (22) of 1948), on 26th of July, 1948. The defendant relied on the provisions of the aforesaid ordinance for a further contention that the suit was not maintainable. The learned Munsif found that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff but did not decide the other issues on a view that Section 7 of the Ordinance applied to the case and that the special rules and procedure prescribed in that section had not been complied with and the suit was, therefore, incompetent. He accordingly dismissed the suit with costs.

( 4 ) ON appeal, the learned District Judge of Chittor took the view that the ordinance came into force on the 30th of July, 1948, and it did not affect the present suit which had been instituted on the 30th of December, 1944. The decision on the preliminary point was reversed and the case was remanded for decision on merits. The defendant has appealed against this order of remand under the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 of the Civil P. C.

( 5 ) AS the controversy hangs round the interpretation of Section 7, it would be useful to state its provisions. Section 7 of the Ordinance reads as follows: provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is the Government of the United States of Rajasthan. Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil Court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in this section, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied: (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, or (ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Ordinance without the written consent of the landlord-

"7 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained eviction of tenants. in any contract, no eviction of tenants. Court shall pass any decree or order in favour of a landlord whether in execution of a decree or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, evicting any tenant except in accordance with the provi-sions of this section: (a) transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire building or any portion thereof, or (b) used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, or (iii) that the tenant has committed such acts of waste