- (1.) THESE Civil Second Appeals arise out of suits filed for eject-ment and arrears of rent by the various landlords against their respective tenants. Some of these suits have been dismissed either wholly or partly, and some of them have been decreed either wholly or partly by the lower appellate court. The landlords have come in appeal in cases where the suits had been dismissed either wholly or partly while the tenants have filed appeal in this court in cases where the suit has been decreed either wholly or partly. In all these cases, the point for decision is, "whether a tenant who has committed default in the payment of the rent and who has been held not entitled to take advantage of the provisions of Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the Act') can take benefit of Sec. 13-A which was inserted in the Act by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Amendment Act (No. 12 of 1965) (hereinafter called 'the Amending Act' ). The amending Act received the assent of the President on 2nd June, 1965 and was published for general information in the Rajasthan Gazettee Extra-ordinary dated 9. 6. 65. There is no doubt that the Amending Act came into force on 9th June, 1965 by virtue of Sec. 5 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955. The Amending Act has amended certain provisions of the Act and has inserted some new sections. Sec. 13-A so inserted is material for the purposes of these appeals and this section runs, as follows: - 13-A.- Special provisions relating to pending and other matters.- Notwithstanding anything in sec. 13, sub-sec. (1) (a), or sub-sec. (4) and the proviso thereto or sub-sec. (5) as they existed before the commencement of the amending Act: (a) no court shall, in any proceeding on the date of commencement of the amending Act, pass any decree in favour of a landlord for eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, if the tenant applies under clause (b) and pays to the landlord, or deposits in court, within such time such aggregate of the amount or rent in arrears, interest thereon and full costs of the suit as may be directed by the court under and in accordance with the clause. (b) in every such proceeding, the court shall, on the application of the" tenant made within thirty days from the date of commencement of the amending Act, notwithstanding any order to the contrary determine the amount of rent in arrears upto the date of the order as also the amount of interest thereon at six percent per annum and costs of the suit allowable to the landlord; and direct the tenant to pay the amount so determined within such time, not exceeding ninety days, as may be fixed by the court: and on such payment being made within the time fixed as aforesaid, the proceeding shall be disposed of as if the tenant had not committed any default: (c) the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) shall mutatis mutandis apply to all appeals, or applications for revisions, preferred or made, after the commencement of the amending Act, against decrees for eviction passed before such commencement with the variation that in clause (b), for the expression "from the date of commencement of the amending Act", the expression "from the date of the presentation of the, memorandum of appeal or application for revision" shall be substituted; (d) if in any proceeding, any decree for eviction on the ground only of non-payment of rent has been passed on or after the 21st March, 1965, but before the date of commencement of the amending Act, and in which no appeal or application for revision has been preferred or made the court may, on the application of the tenant made within thirty days from the date of commencement of the amending Act, re-open the proceeding if the tenant deposits all arrears of rent upto the date of such application as also the amount of interest thereon at six per cent per annum and costs of the suit; and thereafter such proceeding, shall be disposed of as if such deposit of rent constituted a valid payment to landlord in time. Explanation: For the purposes of this sec - (a) "amending Act" means the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1965: and (b) "proceeding" means suit, appeal or application for revision.
(2.) IN all these appeals, except S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 149 of 1. 961 - Udararn vs. Barkatali, the tenants, whether the appellants or respondents have filed applications under Sec. 13-A, Clause (b) of the amending Act and have prayed that proceedings in the appeals should be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 13-A. In S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 149 of 1961, Udaram vs. Barkatali, the tenant, who is an appellant, had already made an application for payment of arrears of rent and costs of the suit even when the case was pending before the trial court, and it is urged that such application must now be deemed to have been filed under Sec. 13-A and benefit of this provision be granted to them also. Counsel for the landlords in these appeals have urged that such tenants cannot be granted benefit of Sec. 13-A as no application has been filed under Sec. 13-A of the Amending Act. Various objections have been taken by the learned counsel for the landlords appearing in these appeals regarding the validity of sec. 13-A and its interpretation. These objections may be summarised, as follows : (1) That sec. 13-A has un-reasonably abridged the fundamental right granted under Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution to the landlord to hold his property; (2) That sec. 13-A has not come into force as no notification for bringing that section in force has been issued by the State Government as required by sec. 2, clause (2) of the Act; (3) That the benefit of sec. 13-A can only be granted to those tenants against whom decree for ejectment has been granted on account of non-payment of rent as mentioned in sec. 13-A, clause (a) and it cannot be granted to those tenants who have been irregular in the payment of rent as in their case it cannot be said that they are going to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent; I take up all these points for decision seriatim. Point No. 1 - The Act was passed to control eviction from, letting of, and rents for, certain premises in Rajasthan. In the cities and towns in Rajasthan, there was and is great shortage of housing accommodation because of the increase in population and growing tendency of urbanization. The influx of displaced persons from Pakistan also had its effect. As a result, landlords resorted to ejectment of tenants in order to get higher rent. In order to put an end to this situation and to ameliorate the condition of tenants, the Act made certain salutary provisions and sec. 13 of the Act provided that no tenant shall be evicted so long as he was ready and willing to pay rent therefor inasumuch as the court was satisfied that the case of the landlord fell in the sub-clauses mentioned in sub-sec. 1 of sec. 13. This Act was originally intended to remain in force for five years. By sec. 3 of Rajasthan Act No. 26 of 1965 the period was extended to 10 years by Act No. 2 and later on to 15 years when the Legislature found that it was likely to take sufficient time to remove the shortage of accommodation prevailing in the cities and towns of Rajasthan. It is common knowledge that there is acute shortage of accommodation in the cities and towns of Rajasthan, and that the tenants in many towns in Rajasthan require protection. Now, by inserting sec. 13-A, the Legislature has thought fit that an opportunity be afforded to the tenants who are liable to be ejected on the ground of nonpayment of rent, to pay the entire rent due to ejectment. Sec. 13-A has this salutary purpose behind it. The restriction on the right of the landlord is only to the extent that he cannot get his property vacated as long as the previous tenant is ready and willing to pay and pays all the arrears of the rent, interest thereon and costs of the suit in accordance with the provisions of sec. 13-A. Such a restriction is a reasonable restriction in interests of the general public on the right of landlord and is valid by reason of Sub-Art. 5 of Art. 19. I, therefore, reject this first contention. Point No. 2 - In order to appreciate this point it is necessary to refer to the provisions of sub-sec. 2 of sec. 2 of the Act. Relevant part of sub-sec. 2 is, as follows: "2. Extent, commencement and application - (1) This Act extends to the whole of the State of Rajasthan. (2) Sec. 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of this Act shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions thereof shall extend to such areas in the State of Rajasthan and shall come into force therein with effect from such date as may from time to time be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette. " Under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 2 of the Act, secs. 1 to 4 and 27 to 31 of the Act came into force at once, but the other provisions of the Act were to be brought into force by notification of the State Government. The State Govt. has made applicable the remaining provisions of the Act in a number of towns by separate notifications. It is, however, contended that sec. 13-A has not been brought into force by any notification of the State Government in any area. On the face of it this argument appears to be plausible, but on a closer examination I find that it cannot stand. As already mentioned, the Amending Act came into force on the 9th June 1965. "strictly speaking, an amendatory Act is not regarded as an independent Act. " (Construction of Statutes by Crawford, 1940 Edn, p. 110 ). The amendments law become effective from the date it has come into force. In the area in which the main Act is in force, the provisions of the main Act must be deemed to have been amended in accordance with the amending Act. This means that in the entire area in which the main Act is in force, the provisions of the Amending Act come into force ipso facto, and there is no need for a separate notification extending its provisions in any local area by any notification to be issued by the State Government except perhaps in cases when the whole of the provisions of the main Act have not come into force. We find that by various notifications, the Rajasthan Government had brought into force all the provisions of the Act. In some of the notifications, the words used are "the Government of Rajasthan is pleased to extend all the provisions of the said Act. " In others, the State Government appointed a particular date as the date on which the provisions of secs. 5 to 26 of the said Act were to come into force, and yet in some others the Government of Rajasthan was pleased to extend all the remaining provisions of the said Act. The language of the various notifications brought to my notice was wid enough, whatever expressions may have been used, to convey the meaning that all the provisions of the Act have been extended to the particular localities to which reference was made in the particular notification. Now the position in law is that after coming into force of the amending Act, the amended law is to be applied in those localities to which the main Act had been extended by the various notifications, and not the Act as stood before the amending Act came into force. By the amending Act sec. 13-A has been inserted and it becomes part of the Act and must be deemed to be in force with regard to the area wherein the Act was in force. In this view of the matter, this contention has got no force. I hold that sec. 13-A will be operative and can be applied in all those cases to which the Act extended for the time being. Point No. 3 - The contention of the learned counsel for the landlord-appellants is that cl. (a) of sec. 13-A mentions that a decree for eviction of a tenant is not to be passed on the ground of non-payment of rent if the tenant applies under cl. (b) and pays to the landlord or deposits in court, within such time such aggregate of the amount or rent in arrears, interest thereon and full costs of the suit as may be directed by the court under and in accordance with cl. (b), and in view of this provision, cl. (a) should be restricted in its application to those cases only in which the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent and should not be applied to a case in which the tenant has not been punctual in the payment of rent. In my opinion, this contention has got no force. Non-payment of rent in this clause means non-payment of rent when the same has become due and covers the case of a tenant who is a defaulter in the payment of rent on due date. Otherwise it will mean that persons who have not paid rent at all will be enjoying the benefit of sec. 13-A while those who have been merely irregular in the payment of rent will be deprived of it. Such cannot be the intention of the Legislature. I. therefore, reject this contention. Having disposed of these three main contentions, now I take up the special contentions which arise in particular appeals. In S. B. Civil Second Appeal No. 149 of 1961 - Udaram vs. Barkatali : no application was made after the coming into force of the amending Act, but the tenant had already made applications when the suits for eviction were pending in the trial court showing his preparedness to pay the entire amount of rent due and the cost of the suit. It is urged by the learned counsel for tenants that such application must be deemed to be application under sec. 13-A as what is envisaged under clause (b) is that an opportunity be given to the tenant to pay to the landlord the rent in arrears, with interest and costs of the suit. No doubt there was no application made by the tenant in this appeal specifically under sec. 13-A, but, in my opinion,, there is no reason why the benefit of this section should not be given to the tenant who had already made an application for the payment of arrears of rent even when the provision of sec. 13-A was not on the statute book. Sec. 13-A has been incorporated in the statute book to grant relief to the tenants who are otherwise liable to be ejected under the law then existing. It is a law which calls for a liberal construction in favour of the tenants. The purpose of law is to benefit a tenant and to see that if he fulfills certain conditions, he should not be evicted. In interpreting the provisions of a beneficial piece of legislation the court must lean in favour of that interpretation which advances the purpose. A tenant who has already made an application which is more or less in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of sec. 13-A even before the amendment came into force. , must be held entitled to obtain relief under clause (a) of sec. 13-A. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that even a tenant, who had not made an application after the coming into force of the amending Act, but had made application before it came into force to the same effect as required under clauses (a) and (b) is entitled to take advantage of sec. 13-A. In some of the appeals it has been argued that in execution of the decree of the trial court or the lower appellate court, tenants have already been evicted and such tenants should not get benefit of sec. 13-A. I do not see any force in this argument. The appeals of such tenants were pending at the time of the coming into force of the amending Act. Their cases were sub-judice. They cannot be deprived of the benefit of sec. 13-A only on the ground that they have been involuntarily ejected in execution of the decree appealed against. It may also be pointed out that in cases in which landlords are appellants and tenants are respondents, the counsel for the tenants have clearly stated that if they are granted benefit of sec. 13-A, they would not press their other objections against their ejectment. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, all the appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court in each appeal are set aside and the case remanded to the respective trial court with the direction that it should determine the amount of' rent in arrears up to the date of the order to be passed by it as provided in cl. (b) and also the amount of interest thereon 6% per annum and the costs of the suit. In determining the costs of the suit the landlord shall be held entitled to the costs in all the three courts. Having determined the aforesaid amount, it shall direct the tenant to pay the amount so determined within such time as it may deem proper but not exceeding 90 days. In case the amount is paid within the time fixed as aforesaid, the court shall dispose of the suit as if the tenant had not committed any default. In case the amount is not so paid, the court shall decree the suit for ejectment. The decree shall provide for payment of arrears of rent if the same is claimed and the costs thereof throughout. The payment that may have already been made by the tenants shall be deducted from the amount determined by the court under sub-clause (b), sec. 13-A. If any amount is lying in deposit in any of the courts, that amount shall also be deducted and ordered to be paid to the landlord. The courts are directed to fix early date of hearing of these cases after the receipt of the record. In each appeal the copy of the application under sec. 13-A filed by the tenant in this court be sent to the trial court. . ;