Second appeals are barred under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, allowing only revisions, as confirmed by the court.

ORDER :

(BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.)

1. Heard the parties on the issue of maintainability of this second appeal.

2. Fact of the case is that the plaintiffs/respondents had brought Civil Suit No. 113/1993 against the appellants for ejectment under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The suit was on two grounds, first, personal necessity of the plaintiffs and second, the default in payment of rent committed by the tenant. The learned trial Judge did not find a case of personal necessity, however, decreed the suit on the ground of default in payment of rent. The decree was challenged in Civil Regular Appeal No. 6/2001 and the appeal was also ultimately dismissed on 30.11.2024. Section 22 of the said Act bars maintainability of a second appeal. The said provision is being reproduced below:-

“Section 22.- Appeal & Revision- (1) From every decree or order passed by a Court under this Act, an appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from original decrees and orders passed by such former Court.

(2) No second appeal shall lie from any such decree or order;

Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the powers of the High Court for Rajasthan in revision.

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the [Magistrate] may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, appeal there from to [the District Magistrate or] such authority as the [State Government] may from time to time appoint in that behalf.

(4) [xxx].”

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that inspite of the bar of second appeal by the special statute, there is judicial pronouncement that second appeal would be maintainable under the general law I.e. Section 100 CPC. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gyan Chand Vs. Kunjbeharilal & Ors. reported in (1977) 3 SCC 317 as well as a judgment of this Court in Ramraj Vs. Naraindas & Anr. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 149/1989)

4. It is worth to notice here that Section 13 of the Act relates to the grounds on which eviction of tenant can be sought for Section 13-A brought by amending the Rajasthan Act 12 of 1965 reserved the right of the tenant to pay the arrears of rent with interest and cost within the outside limit of 2 months and on payment of the same, no decree for eviction on the ground of non payment of rent shall be passed. This is not a case wherein tenant has exercised such right.

5. The case of Gyan Chand (supra) is distinguishable on the facts of this case. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court has not said in Gyan Chand’s case in unequivocal terms that bar of second appeal in Section 22 is a redundant provision. In Gyan Chand’s case, the suit was for a decree of eviction only on the ground of non-payment of rent. There is provision under the Rent Control Act that if a tenant agree to pay arrears of rent within two month’s time allowed, the court would not pass a decree for eviction on the aforesaid ground. While dismissing the tenant’s appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in Para-3 the question raised to be answered as follows :-

“3. The question of law that arises in this appeal is as to whether an application for special leave or an appeal by special leave to this Court is an "appeal" within the meaning of Section 13A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950. as amended by the Rajasthan Ordinance learned Counsel 26 of 1975 (briefly the Act).”

The facts of Gyan Chand’s case was narrated in para-31 to 33, which is being reproduced below :-

“31. The defendant/appellant along with his two brothers Padam Chand and Tara Chand had taken on lease a shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- from the plaintiffs/respondents as far back as September 1, 1961. The shop was situated in Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur City (Rajasthan). The plaintiffs served a notice of eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the appellant and his two brothers terminating the tenancy and directing them to vacate the premise