S. K. MAL LODHA, J.—These two connected revisions before me involve a common question of law and, therefore, it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common order.

2. The petitioner is defendant-tenant and the non-petitioner is plaintiff-land lady. The plaintiff instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant in the court of Munsif City, Jodhpur on February 7, 1975 on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity under section 13(1) (h) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (the Act hereafter). It is common ground between the parties that the shop was let out for commercial and business purposes. During the pendency of the suit, the Act was amended. By means of amendment sub-sections (2) and (3) were added by the amending Ordinance No. XXVI of 1975 with effect from September 29, 1975 Ordinance No. XXVI of 1975 was replaced by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Amendment Act, 1976 (No. XIV of 1976) published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra-ordinary Part IV-A, dated February 13, 1976. Sub-secs. (2) and (3) of sec. 14, read as under :

"(2) No decree for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (h) of subsection (1) of section 13 shall be passed if the Court is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available to the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by passing the decree than by refusing to pass it.

Where the court is satisfied that no hardship would be caused either \6 the tenant or to the land-lord by passing the decree in respect of a part of the premises, the court shall pass the decree in respect of such part only.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no suit for eviction from the premises let out for commercial or business purposes shall lie against a tenant on the ground set forth in clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 13 before the expiry of five years from the date the premises were let out to the tenant."

As the premises were rented out on March 30, 1972 and the suit was brought on February 7, 1975, it was not within a period of 5 years from the date the premises in suit were let out to the defendant and, therefore, he raised an objection before the trial court that the suit was not maintainable because of sec. 14(3) of the Act. This plea was negatived by the trial court by its order dated August 14, 1976 and it held that there is no bar to the maintainability of the suit as the amendment is not applicable to a pending suit. The defendant preferred S. B. Civil Revision No. 501 of 1976 against that order to this court. The revision was dismissed and it was held that sec. 14(3) of the Act as amended by Ordinance No. XXVI of 1975 and replaced by the Amendment Act No. XIV of 1976 is prospective in operation and cannot apply to suits which had already been filed before the coming into force of Ordinance No. XXVI of 1975. It may be stated that this revision was decided on January 17, 1977.

3. It needs to be mentioned here that on November 9, 1976, an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint for incorporating the facts relating to comparative hardship between the landlady and the tenant. The learned Munsif allowed the application on April 24, 1977 and the amended plaint was submitted on May 5, 1977. The defendant-petitioner while resisting the suit, inter alia, raised an objection in para 7 of the written statement, the substance of which is that since the plaintiff had moved an application for amendment of the plaint on November 9, 1976, the suit for ejectment from the shop in dispute, is not maintainable under section 14(3) of the Act. The learned Munsif, after hearing arguments on the defendants application dated November 21, 1977, framed issue No. 10, which when translated into English, reads as follow:

"Whether in view of the fact that the plaintiffs plaint was amended, on the ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document