Dave J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant Kisturchand against the Judgment and decree of the Distt. Judge, Jaipur city, dated the 10th May 1950 confirming the decree of the Munsif West, Jaipur City, dated the 8th February 1950 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment of the appellant.
(2.) THE facts of this case which are no longer in dispute are that the appellant bad rented a shop from the defendants Kisturchand son of Suwalal and Kisturchand son of Jamnalal. THEse defendants later on mortgaged this property to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff wanted to get the shop vacated he approached the Rent Controller to give him certificate but the appellant denied his tenancy. THE Rent Controller refused to give the desired certificate and directed the plaintiff to go to the Civil Court. THE plaintiff thereupon filed the present suit and obtained a decree which is now challanged. The main point pressed by the appellant's learned advocate at the time of arguments is that according to the Jaipur Rent Control Order of 1947 no suit for ejectment of a tenant is entertainable by the Civil Court without a certificate from the Rent Controller, that the denial of the tenancy before the Rent Controller did not bar the operation of the said Order and, therefore, the decree should be set aside. His whole argument turns upon the interpretation of section 8 and 11 of the Rent Control Order. The portions relevant for the purpose of the present case are as follows:- "section 8 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract no landlord shall be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises in the occupation of a tenant, or to have such tenant evicted, whether or not the period of the tenancy has terminated, so long as the tenant is ready and willing to pay rent to the full extent allowable by this Order, unless,upon an application made by him in that behalf, the landlord has obtained from the Controller a certificate to the contrary effect on any one of the following grounds; namely". "sec. 11 (1) So long as this Order is in force, no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide any suit for ejectment or possession arising out of an agreement of existing or intended tenancy unless the plaintiff produces a valid certificate under Clause 8 from the Controller in that behalf". It is clear from the language of the above provisions that sec. 11 bars the jurisdiction of the court while sec. 8 bars the remedy of the landlord in the circumstances detailed therein. Now sec. 11 is to my mind inapplicable to the present case, because it prevents the court from trying and deciding a suit for ejectment or possession only if such a suit arises out of an agreement of existing or intended tenancy. Although the plaint is not very well drafted, it is clear from its paragraph No. 7 that the cause of action had arisen on account of the appellant's refusal to deny the tenancy and recognise the plaintiff as his landlord and the plaintiff has asked for damages for use and occupation of the property. The suit was not based on an agreement of existing or intended tenancy. On the other hand the tenancy had terminated on account of the determination of lease by forfeiture owing to the appellant's denial of tenancy and, therefore, the absence of a certificate under sec. 8 did not bar the jurisdiction of the court. Similarly sec. 8 did not bar the remedy of the plaintiff, since it is clear that the appellant was not ready and willing to pay the rent to the plaintiff. In the case of Mt. Saraswati versus Chahaganlal, reported in Jaipur Law Reports, 1948, pp. 225 and 251 it was held by the learned Judges of the Jaipur High Court that "the bar against recovery of possession by the land-lord in sec. 8 would come into operation when the tenant was ready and willing to pay rent to the full extent allowable by the Order, and it is only when that bar comes into operation that a certificate from the Rent Controller becomes necessary. " Again, in the case of Tikuram and others vs. Mahadeo and Kaluram, reported in 1949 Jaipur Law Reports, p. 126, it was held by the learned Judges of the Court that "where the defendants, do not accept the position of the plaintiffs as landlords and so are not ready and willing to pay rent to the plaintiffs, the provisions of sec. 8 of the Rent Control Order of 1947 do not apply. " I see no reason to disagree with the above view of the learned Judges and, therefore, the appeal does not stand. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. .;