JAGJIVAN SINGH Vs. SITARAM
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-4-23
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on April 02,1952

JAGJIVAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
SITARAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANICK CHANDRA V. HARI PADA [REFERRED TO]
CHAND SHANKAR VS. BOHRE SUKH LAL [REFERRED TO]
SAHABUDDIN VS. MOHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
S RAJA GHETTY VS. JAGANNATHADAS GOVINDAS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BANS RAJ SINGH VS. KRISHNA CHANDRA [LAWS(ALL)-1981-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH PERSHAD JHALANI VS. JATINDER NATH PREM NATH [LAWS(P&H)-1961-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
CHIMANLAL HARILAL KHARVA VS. RAMJIBHAI AMBALAL GANDHI [LAWS(GJH)-1967-3-6] [REFERRED]
MAGGI BAI VS. SITARAM [LAWS(RAJ)-1977-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN LAL VS. SHYAM LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1989-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAN NATH PERSHAD JHALANI VS. JATINDER NATH PREM NATH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1961-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWARLAL VS. RAJA BABU [LAWS(RAJ)-1963-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI K.L. BANSAL VS. SHRIMATI KAUSHALYA DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1962-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL CHICHRA VS. TOPAN RAM [LAWS(P&H)-1963-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
BABU RAM SHARMA VS. PAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1958-9-37] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Wanchoo, C.J. - (1.)This is an appeal by Jagjivan Singh, judgment-debtor, in execution proceedings and arises in the following circumstances:
(2.)Sitaram, decree-holder, brought a suit for ejectment of Jagjivan Singh from a house of which Jagjivan Singh was a tenant. The ground on which the ejectment was prayed was that arrears of rent were due and the house was required by the landlord for his own personal use. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court so far as the prayer for ejectment was concerned. Thereupon there was an appeal to the Additional District Judge and a compromise was arrived at between the parties. On the basis of this compromise, Jagjivan Singh agreed to hand over possession of the house within ten months and a decree was passed accordingly on 30-9-1950. At that time, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. 17 of 195D) was not in force; but the Marwar House Rent Control Act, 1949 was in force. When the period of ten months came to end, the decree-holder Sitaram applied for execution of the decree by ejectment. Thereupon an objection was taken by the judgment-debtor Jagjivan Singh that the decree was not executable and reliance was placed on Section 26 of the Rajasthan Act. It seems that that section, was not mentioned in the application of objection; but the case for the judgment-debtor rested both in the first Court and before the lower appellate Court on Section 26. Both the Courts have held that the decree was executable. Hence this second appeal.
(3.)The main question that arises for determination now is the scope and extent of Section 26, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Bent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act 17 of 1950). That section reads as follows:
"No decree for the eviction of a tenant from any premises in areas to which this Act extends for the time being, passed before the date of commencement of this Act, shall in so far as it relates to the eviction of such tenant be executed against him as long as this Act remains in force therein, except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 13 and under the circumstances specified in this Act."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.