BERI, J.—This is an application by way of revision against the order dated 10-7-70 of the Munsiff, Ganganagar regarding the correctness of the issues framed.

2. Facts it is necessary to notice for the disposal of the application briefly stated are these : The landlord instituted a suit against the tenant for his eviction from a shop No. 52/4 situate in Gol Bazar, Sri Ganganagar inter alia on the ground that the tenant has his own shops which he is using for his business. The tenant contested the suit. On 6 2-1970 four issues were framed. The first issue is the only issue which has been challenged. It reads as follows :

"1. Has the defendant acquired vacant possession of another suitable premises ?"

On 6 5-70 an application was moved by the tenant for the amendment or deletion of issue No. 1 on the ground that the admitted case of the parties in the pleadings related to a shop while the issue employed the word "premises". The learned Munsiff observed that the use of the word "premises" was proper and rejected the application in so far as this point was concerned. It is against this order of 10th July, 1970 that the present application is directed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the ground on which eviction of the tenant has been claimed is under sec. 13(l)(i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called "the Act"), which applies only to a tenant who has built, acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted a suitable residence and not to a shop. The issue No. i, argued the learned counsel, should accordingly have been whether the defendant acquired vacant possession of another suitable shop and if so what is its effect.

4. Mr. Guru Prakash, learned counsel for the non-applicant landlord, argues that the word "premises" is wide enough to include a shop and as the suit relates to a shop the issue should be deemed to cover it.

5. The Code of Civil Procedure insists on the necessity of framing issues which arise from the material proposition of fact and law asserted by one party and denied by the other party for the obvious purpose of guiding the investigation within well-settled boundaries. Precision in the matter of issues is a guarantee against disgression and discursiveness. Any time or thought bestowed in the framing of issues is well spent because it saves future waste of time. Reference in this connection may be made to Sayad Muhammad vs. Fatteh Muhammad(l). It is true that in Sub-sec. (v) of sec. 3 the generic word premises in the Act is wide enough to include any building or part of a building (other than a farm building) let or inten-ded to be let for use as a residence or for commercial use or any other purpose, including the gardens, grounds, godowns, garages and outhouses, if any, appurtenant to such building, etc. etc. and should, therefore, ordinarily include a shop because the purpose being commercial user thereof. But even in the definition the Legislature has qualified buildings by reference to their use, namely, "let for use as a residence or for commercial use". The same distinction appears to have been maintained while drafting S. 13 in which excepting for cls. (a) and (i) the word used throughout is premises. It will be appropriate here to extract the language of sec. 13 to the extent it is material for our purposes :

"Sec. 13. Eviction of Tenants —

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract no court shall pass any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant, so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied —

(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months; or

(b) that the tenant has wilfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises; or

(c) that the tenant has without the permission of the landlord made or

pesmitted to be made any such const

Click Here to Read the rest of this document