Wanchoo, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the Munsif, Udaipur under sec. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has arisen under the following circumstances -
(2.) A suit was filed in November, 1952, by Govind Singh and others against Rajkrishna Singh for arears of Rent and ejectment of the defendant. The defendant claimed the benefit of sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (No. XVII) of 1950, (hereinafter called the Rajasthan Act) which lays down certain special conditions which have to be fulfilled before a tenant can be ejected from his house, Thereupon, the plaintiff raised two pleas - (1) That the Rajasthan Act was not in force as sec. 31, sub-sec.(1) of the Act providing for extension of the duration was ultra vires of the powers of the legislature, and ! (2) that sec. | 13 of the Act being repugnant to certain provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and Contract Act and the Civil Procedure Code and, the assent of the President not having been obtained, this section was, to the extent of the repugnancy, void. The Munsif was of the view that the extension of the Rajasthan Act by the Rajpramukh was ultra vires, and therefore the Act was no longer in existence. He was also of the view that sec. 13 of the Act was repugnant to sec. 108 (q) of the Transfer of Property Act and certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the Contract Act, which, however, he did not specify. There fore,; he made this reference under sec.113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So far as the first question is concerned, namely whether the Rajasthan. Act was validly extended by the Rajpramukh after the first period of two years provided in sec. 31(1) had expired, it is enough to say that the question has been answered by a Bench of this Court in Milapchand vs. Dwarkadas(l) It has been held there that the extention was valid, and we return the same answer to the first question. The second question return to the validity of sec. 13 of the Act which provides that certain conditions have to be fulfilled before a tenant can be ejected. This question was specifically left open in Milapchand's case (1) as that was a case for fixation of standard rent and not for eviction. But the nature of the Rajasthan Act was considered in that case, and it was pointed out that it was an Act supplementary to other laws and sec. 28 made it clear that its provisions were not derogatory of any law on the subject for the time being in force in the whole or any part of Rajasthan. The main contention before the Munsif was based on sec. 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act which provides that in the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary the lessee is bound to put the lessor into possession of the property on the determination of the lease. The argument is that as soon as the lease determines, it is the duty of the lessee to put the lessor into possession, and. if the lessee fails to do so, the lessor has a right to sue for ejectment, and that this right of the lessor to sue for ejectment and get the lessee ejected is not subject to any other conditions of the nature specified in sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Act so far as the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are concerned. We are of opinion that this contention is fully met by the provisions of sec. 2 of the Transfer of Property Act. That section provides as follows: - "In the territories to which this Act extends for the time being the enactments specified in the schedule hereto annexed shall be repealled to the extent therein mentioned. But nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect. (a) the provisions of any enactment not hereby expressly repealed, (b)..................................................." This provision clearly lays down that the Transfer of Property Act does not affect the provisions of any enactment which is not expressly repealed by it when it is extended to any territory in India. So far as Rajasthan is concerned, the Transfer of Property Act was extended to it no the 1st of April, 1951. The Rajasthan Act come into force in November, 1950 and was, therefore, in existence when the Transfer of Property Act was applied to Rajasthan on the 1st of April, 1951. By virtue therefore of section 2 of the Transfer of Property Act nothing contained in that Act can be deemed to affect the provisions of the Rajasthan Act which was in force in Rajasthan, and had not been expressly repealed by the Transfer of Property Act. We have already pointed out that the Rajasthan Act is a supplementary Act, and the change, that can be said to have come about when the Transfer of Property Act was enforced on the 1st of Apral 1951, in the whole of Rajasthan. was to make the provisions of sec.I3 of the Rajasthan Act supplementary to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act relating to ejectment. Anothar reason given by the Munsif for the view that section 13 of the Rajasthan Act was invalid is that section lays down that even though there might be a decree of ejectment against tenant at the time when the Rajasthan Act came into force, that decree would not be executed unless the terms of sec. 13(1) were complied with. According to the Munsif, this affects the right of a party given in the Civil Procedure Code to execute his decrees once it has been obtained under the conditions mentioned in the decree itself, and under no other restrictions. The answer to this argument in our opinion is contained in sec. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Code was also applied to Rajasthan on the 1st of April, 1954, by the Part B States Laws Act (No.III) of 1951. Sec. 4 lays down that in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local laws now in force. We have already said that the Rajasthan Act was in force since November, 1950, and was therefore in force when the Code of Civil Procedure was applied to Rajasthan on the 1st of April, 1951. Therefore, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code did not affect the provisions already existing in sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Act by which decrees already passed before November, 1950, were to be executed only if the condition, mentioned in sec. 13(1) of the Rajasthan Act were complied with. The Munsif also considered that sec. 13 was invalid because it conflicted with the Contract Act. He has not mentioned any particular provision of the Contract Act which hits this provision of the Rajasthan Act. We should, however, like to point out that sec. 37 of the Contract Act itself provides that parties to the contract must perform or offer their respective promises, unless such performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions of this Act or of any other law. Therefore the provisions of sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Act would be protected by sec. 37 of the Contract Act itself which allows parties to refrain from performing their part of the contract if they are excused either under the provisions of the Contract Act or of any other law. The Rajasthan Act in these circumstances must be deemed to be 'any other law' excusing the performance of the terms of the contract relating to ejectment. What we have said above refers to the Rajasthan Act as it stood in 1950 when it was passed. We understand that since then there have been certain amendments after the coming into force of the Transfer of Property Act and the Civil Procedure Code from the 1st of April, 1951. But these amendments have not been specifically mentioned by the Munsif in the referring order, and we should not therefore be taken to express any opinion about the validity of the amendment made in the Rajasthan Act after the 1st of April, 1951. Our reply, therefore, to the two questions impliedly formulated by the Munsif are - (1) that the Rajasthan Act was validly extended by the Rajpramukh under the proviso to sec. 31(1), and (2) that sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Act, as it was in November, 1950, when it was passed, is not hit by the Transfer of Property Act, or the Civil Procedure Code or the Contract Act. Let these answers be returned to the Munsif concerned. ;