Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of first appellate court dated 4/5/2001, whereby, the learned first appellate court upheld the eviction decree and rejected the defendant tenant's appeal but however, directed the landlord, who sought eviction of the suit premises on the ground stated in Section 13(1)(k) of the Act as the suit premises i.e. shop in question had become unfit for human habitation, to give back the possession of the shop in question after necessary repairs to the tenant on a fresh rent note to be executed by him. A period of two months was granted to the landlord by the first appellate court for this purpose.
(2.) BEING aggrieved of only the said, part of the judgment & decree of first appellate court, the plaintiff landlord has approached this Court by way of present second appeal which was admitted by this Court on 23/3/2004 with the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned lower appellate court is acting within the scope of exercise of Judicial powers in relying on the alleged newspaper report in respect of an alleged Supreme Court judgment, without even caring to know under what State Law such an order has, if at all, been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court? (2) Whether the Learned lower appellate court is right in acting within its jurisdiction in passing an order directing the landlord to reconstruct the shop within two months and redeliver possession to tenant respondent on redetermined rent on the basis of standard rent? Mr. Manish Shishodia, Learned Counsel for the appellant plaintiff urged that the learned first appellate court has misplaced reliance on the Supreme Court decision dated 16/11/2000 as published in the local newspaper Rajasthan Patrika' without verifying the said judgment from the law reports itself. The said judgment was later on reported in, 2000 WLC 125 Kondeti Suryanarayana and Ors v. Pinninthi Seshagiri Rao. A perusal of said judgment reveals that said judgment in fact deals with specific provisions of Section 12(1)(b) & (2) of the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Sub -clause (b) of Sub -section (1) of Sub -section (2) of Section 12 reads as under: (b) that the building consisted of not more than two floors and is reasonably sand bonafide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building and that the possession of the building to be delivered to the landlord before a specified date. (2) No order for recovery of possession under this Section shall be passed unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the building on completion of the repairs, alterations or additions or the new building on its completion will be offered to the tenant, who delivered possession in pursuance of an order under Sub -section (1), for his occupation before the expiry of such period as may be specified by the Controller in this behalf.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant landlord Mr. Shishodia submitted that there is no such provision in the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 and the only provision allowing repossession of suit premises by the tenant is contained under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950, which read as under: Section 15. - Restoration of possession to evicted tenant - Where a decree for eviction of any premises has been passed by the court against a tenant on any of the grounds specified in Clause (h) of Sub -section (1) of Section 13 and the landlord fails to utilize the premises the use or purpose for which such eviction shall have been decreed within two months of obtaining possession thereof, or, in the case of premises let out for residential purpose, a: any time within one year and in the case of premises let out for commercial or business purposes, at any time within five years of obtaining possession, lets the whole or any part thereof to any person other than the evicted tenant, the Court which passed the decree may, on the application of the evicted tenant, place him in possession of the premises.;