R.R.YADAV, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7-4-99 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Jodhpur in Execution Misc. Case No. 5/99, rejecting the application moved under Section 47 CPC.
(2.) IT is urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. R.R. Chacha that sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 17 of 1950) clearly provides that no Court shall pass any decree or make any order in favour of a landlord whether in execution of a decree or otherwise evicting the tenant, so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent, unless any of the grounds enumerated under Clauses (a) to (1) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950 are satisfied. Next limb of the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the ground for eviction is not only required to be in existence at the time of filing of the suit but must continue to exist up to the date of execution of a decree. A decree passed under Clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950 becomes inexecutable i.e. becomes non est if the tenant is able to show even at the time of execution that reasonable and bonafide requirement of landlord has ceased to exist after passing the decree. In support of his aforesaid contention he placed reliance on a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rakesh Gupta v. Ahmed Farooq, reported in 1992(2) Raj LW 398 wherein it is ruled that where a decree of ejectment has been passed on the ground that the plaintiff-landlord required the suit premises reasonably and bonafidely for his own use then such ground for eviction is not only required to be in existence at the time of filing of the suit but must continue to exist until decree is executed or tenant is actually evicted. A decree of eviction passed on aforesaid ground cannot be executed if the tenant is able to show even at the time of execution that such requirement has ceased to exist since passing of the decree.
(3.) WITH all respect at my command, I am not able to subscribe the interpretation taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rakesh Gupta, 1992(2) Raj LW 398 (supra) for the reason that while interpreting non obstante sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Act No. 17 of 1950, the following mandatory provisions envisaged under Section 15 of Act No. 17 of 1950 escaped the notice of the learned Single Judge which read thus :- 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 landlord fails to utilise the premises to the use or purpose for which such eviction suit shall have been decreed within two months of obtaining possession thereof or in the case of premises let out for residential purposes, at 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." ;