Order

Reserved on :- 18/03/2025 Pronounced on:- 24/03/2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed Original Civil Suit No.81/1990 (re-numbered as Nos.389/1995 and 38/2012) on 27.09.1990 for ejectment of the appellant from the suit premises as well as for injunction on two grounds:- first the appellant-tenant materially altered the suit premise to diminish its value; secondly, the plaintiff had personal necessity of the suit premise. The suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 26.05.2012 on both the grounds.

3. The decree was challenged in Civil Appeal No.14/2013, which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 18.12.2021, hence, this second appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection on maintainability of this second appeal in view of the specific bar contained in Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, which was applicable on the date of the institution of the suit. The said provision reads as follows:-

“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.”

5. Evidently, the statue bars maintainability of the second appeal, however, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a civil revision in view of proviso to Section 22 (2) (supra).

6. It appears that while granting interim stay on the effect and operation of the impugned judgment till next date by order dated 17.11.2021, a Bench of this Court had noticed the submissions of the appellant regarding involvement of substantial question of law.

The said interim order is continuing.

7. Since a civil revision is maintainable, let this appeal be treated as a civil revision petition. For statistical purpose, it be registered as a civil revision.

8. The jurisdictional issue raised in this civil revision is whether the courts below have failed to consider feasibility of partial eviction of the suit premise. The area of suit premise is 45 ft. and 43.6 ft wide as well as 34 ft. and 42.9 ft. long. It appears that the trial court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction only for the reason that the plaintiff asserted that partial eviction would not serve his purpose and the defendant also asserted that partial eviction would not serve his requirement.

9. In Krishna Murari Vs. Mitar Singh reported in AIR 1994 SC 489, the identical provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act was considered and the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the failure to make enquiry as to indivisibility of suit premises and drawing presumption merely because suit premises consist of one room was not correct and the matter was remitted back for consideration of partial eviction.

10. The next jurisdictional issue involved is whether the plaintiff had proved a case that the work allegedly done by the tenant in the suit premise was material alteration likely to diminish the value of suit premise.

11. Let this revision application be admitted for hearing.

12. It is not disputed that the tenancy started in the year 1956 by the ancestors of the parties at monthly rent of Rs.400/- and odd. The rent was twice increased and in the year 1986, it was Rs.1600/- per month. There is no reference of enhancement of the rent thereafter, or till institution of the suit.

13. In the circumstance it is directed that the tenants shall pay Rs.30,000/- per month from March 2025 as rent till adjudication of fair rent by the competent authority. Operation o