- (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the landlord in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent.
(2.) THE appellant landlord instituted a suit for ejectment on 16-10-1951, on the ground that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide for the use of the landlord. He claimed arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 125/- and Rs. 32/- on account of damages at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day on the expiry of the time limit contained in the notice to quit. The suit was contested by the defendant on a plea that no certificate from the rent Controller had been obtained prior to the institution of the suit, as required by Section 14 (1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Act No. XVII of 1950 ). He denied that the premises were required by the landlord reasonably and bona fide for his own use, and further he questioned the validity of the notice to quit. The trial court, after evidence, found that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide by the plaintiff for his own purposes, that the notice to quit was valid notice, and that the pre-requisite condition of obtaining a certificate from the rent Controller had been done away with by a subsequent amendment of law by act No. IX of 1952, brought into force from 29-3-1952, by which the provision for obtaining a certificate from the Rent Controller was deleted. It gave a decree for arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs. 133/-, and ordered eviction of the defendant. The defendant filed an appeal only as regards the order for ejectment. The learned Senior Civil Judge, who heard the appeal, was of opinion that the obtaining of the certificate from the Rent Controller being a necessary condition for the institution of the suit, the plaintiff was not competent to institute the suit on 16-10-1951, and that the subsequent amendment did not improve his position. He accordingly allowed the appeal, and dismissed the suit as regards his prayer for ejectment of the defendant. The plaintiff landlord has come in second appeal.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that the law in force on 16-10-1951, was the Rajasthan premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 No XVII of 1950) as it stood unamended by Act No. IX of 1952. Under Section 14 (1) of that Act it was laid down that: "nothwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law, no suit for the eviction of a tenant on any ground other than those specified in Clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section CD of Section 13 shall be filed in any court unless the landlord has, upon an application made by him, obtained a certificate from the Controller in that behalf. " A prayer for eviction on the ground of personal necessity is mentioned in Clause (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 and it was, therefore, a class of suit, for which the obtaining of the certificate of the Rent Controller was necessary before the institution of the suit. The language of Section 14 (1) is not happy. It says that no suit shall be filed unless the landlord has obtained a certificate in the particular class of cases. There can be no restriction as to the filing of a suit, because that depends upon the will of any suitor, but what the section intends is that such a suit would not be maintainable. I interpret the said section accordingly. Section 13, however, laid down a duty on the court not to pass a decree in favour of the landlord, unless it was satisfied that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself or his family, in case the suit was brought for eviction on that ground. Under the law, therefore, there was duplication of procedure, inasmuch as while the plaintiff had first to satisfy the Rent Controller in that behalf, and obtain a certificate, that certificate did not relieve the court from satisfying itself on evidence that the premises were required reasonably and bona fide by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself or his family. This has been so held in more than one case decided by this Court, Kajod Mal v. Baluram 1955 Raj LW 117 (A ).;