JAGAT NARAYAN, C.J.—These two revision applications can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment as the same questions of law arise in both of them.

2. They arise out of two suits for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction from two shops owned by Balkishen plaintiff. The tenant of the shop in S. B. Civil Revision No. 41 of 1972 is Banwarilal and that of shop in S. B. Civil Revision No.50 of 1972 is Nandlal. Both suits were filed on 15-11-1964. The premises are situate in Rajgarh town of Churu District. The Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was published in the gazette on 23 12-1950. Secs. 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of the Act came into force atonce all over Rajasthan. The remaining sections were not in force in Rajgarh town when the present suit was instituted. They came into force during the pendency of the present suit on 31-3 67. The first date of hearing fixed in the two suits was 22-12-65. Both the suits were based on two grounds. The first ground was that the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the rent due from him for six months. The second ground was that the shops were required by |the landlord for his own use. Both the suits were contested by the defendants. The first date of hearing after the coming into force of the whole of the Act, in both the suit was 13-4-1967. On that date the defendants did not deposit the rent as contemplated u/s. 13(4) of the Act. On 18-5-67 they filed application purporting to be u/s. 13(4) of the Act and offering to make deposits but no deposit was made even then. On 19-8 70 the plaintiff filed applications that the defence against eviction on the ground of default should be struck out under sec. 13(6) of the Act. These applications were opposed by the defendants. The trial Court held that when the provisions of sec. 13 of the Act are extended to an area the words "the first date of hearing" mean "the first date of hearing after the coming into force of sec. 13 of the Act in the area." As no deposit was made as required by sec. 13(4) of the Act, on 13-4-67, the defence of the defendants against eviction on the ground of default was struck out by the trial Court The defendants appealed to the learned Additional District Judge who concurred with the learned Munsif and dismissed the appeals.

3. The learned counsel for the defendants have contended that the provisions of sub-sees. (4),(5),(6) and (7) of sec. 13 of the Act are not retrospective but are only prospective and have no application to a case where the provisions of sec. 13 of the Act are extended to the area where the premises are situated during the pendency of the suit. They relied on the provisions of sec. 27 of the Act and on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chandrasinh Manibhai vs. Sujitlal Ladhamal Chhabda(l).

4. In the above case their Lordships were called upon to interpret the provi-sions of secs. 12 and 50 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Act No. 57 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Act). Sub-secs. (2) and (3) of sec. 12 and the proviso to sec. 50 of the Bombay Act which are relevant for the present case, run as follows—

"(2) No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against a tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, Until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in the manner provided in sec. 106, T. P. Act, 1882.

(3) No decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if, at the hearing of the suit, the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent or permitted increases then due together with the costs of the suit."

Sec. 50 proviso—

Provided that all suits and proceedings (other than execution proceedings and appeals) between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery or fixing of rent or posses

Click Here to Read the rest of this document