Pinjara Punja Vali vs Nivadram Hakumatmal

Baxi, J.—This revision has been preferred against the judgment of the Dist. Judge Central Saurashtra Division, by which he reversed the decree of the joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajkot, ordering the opponent to vacate a certain house which was left to his a under a rent note. The opponent fell into arrears of rent and the applicant filed the suit against him in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Divisions, Rajkot, for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction. The leaned Joint Civil Judge to whom the suit was transferred for disposal fixed the standard rent of the dela at Rs. 12/ - per month and passed a decree against the opponent for Rs. 276/- for arrears of rent at that rate and Rs. 5/7/- for pleader''s costs with costs of the suit and ordered that the opponent should pay the decretal amount in instalments of Rs. 30/- per month under the Displaced Persons (Legal Proceedings) Act of 1949, and should give security for the amount. He also ordered that the opponent should give vacant possession of the house to the applicant. In appeal the learned District Judge reduced the standard rent to Rs. 7-8-0 per month and ordered the opponent to pay Rs. 177-15-0 for arrears of rent and costs to be paid by instalment of Rs. 30/- per month. But he set aside the Civil Judge''s decree ordering the opponent to deliver vacant possession of the house to the applicant on the ground that as the opponent was a refugee and was given the benefit of the Displaced Persons (Legal Proceedings) Act of 1949, no decree for eviction could be passed against him.

The order of the learned District Judge is clearly wrong. Under the Displaced Persons (Legal Proceedings) Act, the Court may when passing a money decree direct that the amount be paid by instalments. But that Act has no application to a decree for possession of Immovable property. The opponent was in arrears of rent and consequently the applicant had a right to institute a suit to obtain possession on the ground of non-payment of rent and the opponent can avoid a decree for eviction only by paying arrears of standard rent due and the costs of the suit as required u/s 12(3), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 as applied to Saurastra. He has not done so. Therefore the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to refuse to pass the decree for eviction against the opponent.

The revision is allowed and the decree of the learned District Judge dismissing the applicant''s suit for eviction is set aside. The opponent is ordered to deliver vacant possession of the dela to the applicant on or before 30-9-52. The rest of the learned District Judge''s decree is confirmed. The opponent is ordered to pay the applicant''s costs of the revision.