Chandra Filling Service and Others vs Ram Prasad and Others

Mohd. Yamin, J.—In these appeals a question has arisen before me. Whether Second Appeal is maintainable in cases where a decree for eviction is passed u/s 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The point in issue came for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in General Produce Co. Ltd., Jaipuria Mansion, Jaipur v. Sonmati Holdings, Johari Bazar, Jaipur 1996(1) WLC (Raj.) 535 wherein it was held that Second Appeal was not maintainable. Learned Counsel at Gyan Chand Vs. Kunjbeharilal and Others, and drew my attention to para 26 of the judgment, which reads as under:

It is manifest from a perusal of the scheme of the Act that appeals or applications for revision u/s 13A(c) relate only to decrees in suits for eviction based on the ground of nonpayment of rent. Such appeals or applications for revision u/s 13A(c) are not contemplated u/s 22 of the Act. As shown above, decrees or orders passed by the court under the Act against which appeals and revisions are provided In Section 22 do not take in decrees or orders passed in a suit for eviction. Usual rights or appeal and revision will be available in the latter class of suits. To hold otherwise will be to deny a right of second appeal to a litigant, be he a landlord or tenant, against a decree in an eviction suit which is clearly not the intention of the legislature. Second appeal is only barred in case of decrees or orders passed under the Act to which a copious reference has been made hereinabove with reference to the various provisions of the Act.

In view of this decision of the Apex Court, Second Appeal is maintainable u/s 100, CPC. This decision of the Supreme Court was not brought to notice of Division Bench in M/s General Produce Co.''s case (supra).

List for admission.