- (1.) This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Bhilwara, dated August 28, 1975, in a suit for eviction and arrears of rent.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against Ram Kumar alleging that Ram Kumar took the suit shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per mensem on August 21, 1958. The plaintiff sought eviction of the tenant Ram Kumar on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. The defendant Ram Kumar admitted having taken the shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per mensem. He, however, disputed that the plaintiff required the disputed shop reasonably and bonafide for his own business or for the business of his brothers and sons. The defendant also challenged the validity of the notice terminating the tenancy served upon the plaintiff before the filing of the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- During the course of the trial, the defendant-tenant Ram Kumar died and his legal representatives, who are the appellants before me, were brought on record. The trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. It further held that Ram Kumar was a statutory tenant and on his death, his legal representatives were not entitled to any protection under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The trial Court accordingly decreed the suit. The legal representatives of the deceased defendant Ram Kumar went in appeal to the District Judge, Bhilwara, who transferred it to the Court of Civil Judge, Bhilwara, for disposal in accordance with law. The learned Civil Judge agree with the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2 and held the notice to quit to be valid. He further upheld the finding of the trial Court that the legal representatives were not entitled to any protection under the Act. Since no other point was pressed before him, he dismissed the appeal. It is against this decree that the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant Ram Kumar have preferred this second appeal.
(3.) Before this appeal was filed in this Court, the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, was amended by the Rajasthan Ordinance No. 26 of 1975 published in Rajasthan Gazette on September 29, 1975. The Ordinance was subsequently enacted into an Act of the Legislature viz., the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 14 of 1976) on February 13, 1976. After the amendment, clauses (d), (e) and (f) Section 13-A read as under :- "(d) no Court shall in any proceeding pending on the date of commencement of the amendment Ordinance, pass any decree in favour of a landlord for eviction solely on the ground that due to the death of the tenant as defined in clause (vii) of Section 3 as it stood before the commencement of the amending Ordinance, his surviving spouse, son, daughter and other heir as are referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (vii) of Section 3 were not entitled to the protection against eviction under this Act as it stood before the commencement of the amending Ordinance; (e) no decree for eviction passed by any Court before the commencement of the amending Ordinance shall, unless the same already stands executed before such commencement, be executed against the surviving spouse, son, daughter and other heir as are referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (vii) of Section 3 if such decree was passed solely on the ground as is referred to in clause (d) and such decree shall be deemed to be a nullity as against them; and (f) the provisions of clause (d) shall mutatis mutandis apply to all appeals, or applications for revisions preferred or made, after the commencement of the amending Ordinance;" It is abundantly clear from the above clauses that no Court can either in appeal or revision or any other proceedings pass any decree in favour of a landlord for eviction solely on the ground that due to the death of the tenant his surviving spouse were not entitled to the protection against eviction under the Act. In these circumstances, the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge on the ground that the legal representatives of the deceased-tenant were not entitled to any protection under the Act, cannot be sustained.;