Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a revision by Hansraj against the order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, refusing to stay the suit brought by Gappulal and another against him.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision are briefly these. Hansraj was a tenant of Gappulal and Damodar. It is said that the landlords gave notice to Hansraj on the 16th of September, 1950, determining the tenancy. Thereafter, a suit was filed by them on the 10th of September, 1951, in the Court of the Civil Judge for recovery of damages for use and occupation for the period after the determination of the tenancy. Before this, however, the tenant, Hansraj, had filed a suit on the 4th of January, 1951, for fixation of standard rent under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereafter called the Principal Act. As soon as the landlords filed their suit for damages for use and occupation, Hansraj applied to the Munsifs Court under sec. 7 of the Principal Act for an order of stay of proceedings in the Civil Judges Court. Thereupon, the Munsif passed an order for stay of proceedings in the Civil Judges Court under that section. When that order was received by the Civil Judge, it was urged on behalf of the landlords opposite parties that sec. 7 did not apply to that kind of suit which was pending in the Civil Judges Court, and, therefore, the Civil Judge could ignore the order of the Munsif. This contention has been accepted by the Civil Judge relying on a Single Judge decision of this Court in Hanuman Bux vs. Dev Dutt (1) (A.I.R. 1952 Rajasthan 111.). The Civil Judge has held that the suit before him is for damages for use and occupation, and not for arrears of rent, and sec. 7 has no application, and has, therefore, refused to stay the suit. The present revision is against that order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant Hansraj contends that the decision of the learned Single Judge in Hanuman Buxs case is incorrect, and does not lay down good law, and this Bench should, therefore, reconsider the matter. That was a case under the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, and the question that arose there was whether secs. 3 and 5 of that Order were applicable to a tenant whose tenancy had been determined, but who remained in occupation for some time after the determination of the tenancy. The learned Judge held that secs. 3 and 5 of the Jaipur Rent Control Order, 1947, applied to cases where the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and that where such relationship had come to an end on the determination of a lease, those sections did not apply. He, therefore, held that it was open to the landlord, after giving notice of termination of tenancy, to charge more for use and occupation than the rent, which was agreed between the parties before the tenancy was determined.

4. If we may say so with respect, the decision appears all right on a strictly literal interpretation of the words used in the relevant sections of the Jaipur Rent Control Order; but we cannot fail to point out that sometimes a strictly literal interpretation may not be the correct interpretation when dealing with a remedial legislation like the Jaipur Rent Control Order. Such a strictly literal interpretation in cases of remedial legislation may wholly or in part nullify the benefits which the legislature intends to confer on those for whom the legislation is intended. In this very case, the intention of the Jaipur Legislature obviously was to come to the rescue of tenants, so that they remained in occupation of the premises let to them on the rents which they were paying, and thus be saved from excessive increases in rent on account of the emergency which was then prevailing due to shortage of houses. But if it was open to a landlord to give notice terminating the tenancy, and then claim any amount as damages for use and occupation, much, at any rate, of the purpose of this legislation would have disappeared. It seems that this aspect of the matter wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document