RAVANI, CJ. - (1.) WHILE interpreting the provisions of any statute, what should be the approach of the Court? Should the Court adopt literal grammarian approach notwithstanding the fact that by adopting such approach the very object of the Act may be frustrated? Or, the approach should be to consider the history of the legislature, scheme of the Act, object underlying the provisions, the context in which the expression or words used in the concerned Section occurred, and thereby to discern the true intention of the legislature? This in short, is the question which has surfaced in this Revision Petition which has come up before Division Bench on account of a question having been referred to larger Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2.) FOLLOWING question has been referred to Division Bench by learned Single Judge (Coram GS Singhvi, J.) as per order dated August 27, 1992 : " Whether the order passed under S. 13 (5) striking out the defence of a tenant against eviction would apply to all grounds of eviction specified in S. 13 (1) (a) to (1) and other laws or such striking out is limited to the defence against eviction on the ground specified in S. 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950?" The question has arisen in the backdrop of the facts that follow and in view of the conflict between two decisions of this High Court, one in the case of Desraj vs. Om Prakash & Anr. (1), and another in the case of Inder Chand vs. Smt. Lilawati (2)The facts in brief: (4) The respondents filed a suit for eviction of suit premises i. e. a shop situated in Bharatpur, inter alia on the ground of: (1) Default in payment of rent (2), Reasonable and bona fide personal requirement of the landlord, (3) Sub-letting of the premises by tenant, and Denial of title of the landlord by the tenant. The Trial Court framed 14 issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. On April 14, 1982 (however in the referring order the date mentioned is 4. 4. 1984, which do not seem to be correct), the Trial Court passed an order under Section 13 (3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Rajasthan Act) determining the provisional rent. Thereafter by order dated September 13, 1982 the Trial Court passed an order under Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Act and struck off the defence of petitioners-defendants. The evidence of plaintiffs was recorded and completed on April 16, 1991. Thereafter the case was adjourned for recording of evidence of the defendants for few days. Ultimately on January 6, 1992, when the defendants were present and were ready to depose, an objection was raised by the respon-dents-plaintiffs that the defence of petitioners = defendants was already struck off, therefore, they cannot be permitted to produce evidence whatsoever. On this point, after hearing the parties, the Trial Court passed order dated April 18, 1992 and held that the petitioners-defendants cannot be allowed to produce evidence on any issue except issue No. 8 which related to arrears of rent and mesne profits. It is against this order passed by the Trial Court that the Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants. When the Revision Petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, the conflict between two decisions of this High Court was pointed out. The learned Single Judge directed that the file be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench for deciding the aforesaid question. This is how the Revision Petition is before the Division Bench. Conflicting Decisions (i) Desraj vs. Om Prakash: In the case of Desraj vs. Om Prakash (Supra), decree of eviction was passed on the ground of default of payment of arrears of rent. In this connection the learned Single Judge has mentioned the facts in paras 3 and 4 of the reported decision, which reads as follows : " 3. Add now traditional narrations. This is a revision petition u/s. 115, CPC, against the order of District Judge, Alwar, passed on 13th October 84, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 149/83. 4. It is common ground that from October 81 to July 82, an amount of Rs. 2600/- was deposited on 24. 07. 82 and not by the 15th day of the next month. On the above premises, both the lower courts have found that the defence against eviction deserves to be struck off u/s. 13 (4) & (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. " Thereafter the learned Single Judge referred to the provisions of Section 13 and Section 13a of the Rajasthan Act and in para 7 of the judgment came to the conclusion as follows : " In my opinion, the deeming provision of section cannot be extended to sub-sections (3) & (4) Sec. 13 of the Act. The reason is obvious that the legislature made the amendment after sub-sections (3) & (4) were in existence, and if it wanted to extend the effect of the deeming provision, it should have and could have mentioned sub-section (3) & (4) also. Because there was a mention of clause (a), nothing prevented the legislature from mentioning sub-sections (3) & (4) " Thus it is evident that as held by the learned Single Judge, the effect of the striking off of the defence by the order passed under Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Act, was confined to the ground of eviction mentioned in Section 13 (1) (a) only. Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act reads as follows : " Section 13 Eviction of tenants: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied : (a) That the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months;" In substance, the learned Judge held that the expression "defence against eviction to be struck out", occurring in Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Act, had limited scope covering the ground of eviction under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act only and not other grounds mentioned in Section 13 (l) (b) to (1 ). ii) Inder Chand vs. Smt. Lilawati :
(3.) THE case of Inder Chand vs. Smt. Lilawati (supra) was revision petition arising out of a suit for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent and for reasonable and bona fide necessity of the premises. After the written statement was filed by the defendant, the Trial Court had passed an order determining the interim rent under Section 13 (3) of the Rajathan Act. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had committed default in making payment of rent. Hence the plaintiff filed an application for striking off the defence. THE Trial Court passed an order dated March 3, 1986 and struck off the defence of the defendant- tenant. THE Trial Court held that the petitioner-defendant could not be permitted to lead evidence on any of the issues. In the opinion of Trial Court, if defendants were to be permitted to lead evidence, it would amount to re-consideration of the earlier order dated March 3, 1986, by which the defence w|as ordered to be struck off. Before the learned Single Judge, decision of this Court in the case of Desraj vs. Om Prakash (supra) was cited. However, the learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo It was a case arising out of the provisions of The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. According to the learned Single Judge the controversy was set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Modula India (supra) following the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and by referring to the language of Section 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Act, the learned Single Judge held that if a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (4) on the date or time specified therein, defence against eviction under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act as well as defence on other grounds will also stand struck off. In the opinion of learned Single Judge similar view was taken by another Single Bench of this Court in the case of Deshraj vs. Om Prakash & Anr (supra ). iii) Deshraj -Ii The case of Deshraj II was a case in which the tenant sought to reagitate the question as regards his right so far as the default in payment of rent was concerned. This he sought to do on the ground that after the decision of High Court in revision, circumstances were changed and there was some change in law pursuant to subsequent Full Bench decision of the High Court. The Trial Court dismissed the application of tenant. Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal of tenant. In revision the learned Single Judge (Coram : NM Kasliwal, J. , as he then was) refused to interfere with the orders passed by the lower courts and rejected the revision application on the ground that the question had become final between the parties when the High Court decided the earlier revision petition No. 676/84. Thus in that case, the question which has cropped up in this revision, was not before the Court. Therefore, this decision is not relevant for deciding the controversy in issue. Basis of decision in the case of Inder Chand: ;