M. C. JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree dated July 24, 1980, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, affirming the judgment and decree of the Munsif City, Jodhpur, whereby the plaintiff's suit for ejectment was decreed.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for eviction against the defendant appellant on the ground of sub-letting, nuisance, and also on the ground that he has acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence by taking on rent another house in which he has started living. THE learned Munsif decided the issues of sub-letting and acquisition of vacant possession of a suitable residence in favour of the plaintiff. However, the issue of nuisance was decided against the plaintiff. Consequently, the learned Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit. THE defendant went in appeal, which was ultimately heard by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, who affirmed the finding on issue No. 1 relating to acquisition of vacant possession of a suitable residence by the tenant. However, the finding on issue relating to sub-letting was reversed. In view of the finding on issue No. 1, the decree of eviction was upheld. It may also be stated here that during the pendency of appeal, the defendant submitted an application for amendment of the written statement. THE defendant sought amendment that he had vacated the second set of premises taken on rent by him and has again started living in the disputed premises. THEre was one more amendment sought in the written statement, but it is not necessary to mention the same as it has not been pressed before me. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the application for amendment by his order dated May 28, 1980. Dis-satisfied with the Judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, the defendant has preferred this appeal. I have heard Shri Rewachand, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Shri L. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. Shri Rewachand, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following three contentions before me:- (1) that the courts below have misconstrued the provision contained in sec. 13 (1) (i) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and have wrongly held that the plaintiff's case is covered in the ground specified in clause (i) of subsection (1) of section 13 of the Act that the tenant has acquired vacant possession of a suitable residence. The expression "acquired vacant possession" of a suitable residence cannot be made applicable to the premises taken on rent by the tenant. In this expression would only fall premises over which the tenant acquires ownership or title and not the premises taken on rent ; (2) that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the tenant has acquired a suitable residence and the finding regarding suitability arrived at by the courts below is erroneous; and (3) that the learned Additional District Judge erred in rejecting the defendant's application for amendment of the written statement. Subsequent event regarding vacation of the new tenanted premises by the defendant and coming back into possession of the disputed premises, should be taken notice of and for which the defendant's application for amendment ought to have been allowed. I shall be dealing with each of the above contentions one by one.
(3.) AS regards the first contention Shri Rewa Chand urged that the word "acquired" occurring in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act, should be construed in the sense of acquisition of ownership or title and not acquisition by taking premises on rent. He submitted that the word 'acquired" should take its meaning from its previous word "built". Under clause (i) a ground for eviction would arise in favour of the land-lord in case the tenant builds a suitable residence or acquires vacant possession of a suitable residence. He may acquire a suitable residence either by way of purchase, succession, gift, will or any other way whereby he may get title over the property. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Dwarkdas Shrinivas v. The Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. (1), Sasadhar Chandra Day vs. Smt. Tara Sundari Dasi (2) and Kanuri Sri Sankara Rao vs. Kanuri Rajyalakshamma (3 ). Shri Mehta, on the other hand, submitted that the word "acquired" should be given its ordinary meaning. It is a word of widest amplitude, which may even mean 'coming into possession". He also urged that the word should be given meaning in the context of the enactment and the object and policy behind it. Reliance was placed by him on Nathani Shivankers Ghanshyam Das v Shah Dhanalal Maneklal (4) and Soni Jagjivan Narsi v. Manchhaben Odhavji (5) He also referred to Swatantra Singh v. Nagendra Nath (6) and Ram Gopal v. Shanti Lal (7), Smt. Radhabai v. State of Maharashtra (8) and Badri Pershad v. Smt. Kanso Devi (9 ). For the proper appreciation and adjudication of the controversy, I may read the relevant provision : - "section - 13 - Eviction of tenants - (l)Notwithstanding anything contained in any law of contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied - xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (i) that the tenant has built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence. " ;