Wanchoo, J.—This is a reference by the Munsif, Udaipur under sec. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has arisen under the following circumstances—

2. A suit was filed in November, 1952, by Govind Singh and others against Rajkrishna Singh for arears of Rent and ejectment of the defendant. The defendant claimed the benefit of sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII) of 1950, (hereinafter called the Rajasthan Act) which lays down certain special conditions which have to be fulfilled before a tenant can be ejected from his house, Thereupon, the plaintiff raised two pleas —

(1) That the Rajasthan Act was not in force as sec. 31, sub-sec.(1) of the Act providing for extension of the duration was ultra vires of the powers of the legislature, and !

(2) that sec. | 13 of the Act being repugnant to certain provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and Contract Act and the Civil Procedure Code and, the assent of the President not having been obtained, this section was, to the extent of the repugnancy, void.

The Munsif was of the view that the extension of the Rajasthan Act by the Rajpramukh was ultra vires, and therefore the Act was no longer in existence. He was also of the view that sec. 13 of the Act was repugnant to sec. 108 (q) of the Transfer of Property Act and certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the Contract Act, which, however, he did not specify. There fore,; he made this reference under sec.113 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. So far as the first question is concerned, namely whether the Rajasthan. Act was validly extended by the Rajpramukh after the first period of two years provided in sec. 31(1) had expired, it is enough to say that the question has been answered by a Bench of this Court in Milapchand vs. Dwarkadas(l) It has been held there that the extention was valid, and we return the same answer to the first question.

4. The second question return to the validity of sec. 13 of the Act which provides that certain conditions have to be fulfilled before a tenant can be ejected. This question was specifically left open in Milapchands case (1) as that was a case for fixation of standard rent and not for eviction. But the nature of the Rajasthan Act was considered in that case, and it was pointed out that it was an Act supplementary to other laws and sec. 28 made it clear that its provisions were not derogatory of any law on the subject for the time being in force in the whole or any part of Rajasthan. The main contention before the Munsif was based on sec. 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act which provides that in the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary the lessee is bound to put the lessor into possession of the property on the determination of the lease. The argument is that as soon as the lease determines, it is the duty of the lessee to put the lessor into possession, and. if the lessee fails to do so, the lessor has a right to sue for ejectment, and that this right of the lessor to sue for ejectment and get the lessee ejected is not subject to any other conditions of the nature specified in sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Act so far as the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are concerned. We are of opinion that this contention is fully met by the provisions of sec. 2 of the Transfer of Property Act. That section provides as follows:—

"In the territories to which this Act extends for the time being the enactments specified in the schedule hereto annexed shall be repealled to the extent therein mentioned. But nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect.

(a) the provisions of any enactment not hereby expressly repealed,

(b)..................................................."

This provision clearly lays down that the Transfer of Property Act does not affect the provisions of any enactment which is not expressly repealed by it when it is extended to any territory in India. So far as Rajasthan is concerned, the Transfer of Property Act was extende

Click Here to Read the rest of this document