Case: Kapur Chand Jain Vs. B. S. Grewal &amp; Others

*(v) * * * *(vi) * * * *(vii) * * * *Explanation :- For the purposes of cl. (iii), a tenant shall be deemed to be in arrears of rent at the commencement of this Act, only if the payment of arrears is not made by the tenant within a period of two months from the date of notice of the execution of decree or order, directing him to pay such arrears of rent."Section 10 provides the procedure which has to be followed when the landlord makes an application. That section, however, need not be quoted because no question about the right procedure arises here.4. It will be noticed that the first clause of S. 14-A is general. It enables a land-owner to apply for the eviction of his tenant on any of the grounds stated in the Act in S.9. The second clause is designed primarily to enable the land-owners to recover arrears of rent from a tenant but the tenant may be ordered to be evicted if after the determination of the rent he does not pay it within the time fixed by the Collector. Clause (iii) enables a tenant to inform the Collector of the landlords refusal to accept rent from him or of a demand of rent in excess of what it should be under the Act.5. The Rules for the determination of the value of the produce under S. 12 did not come into existence till May 19, 1953. The appellant has taken advantage of this circumstance to plead before us that his failure to pay the rent was solely due to his inability to determine the exact rent in the manner contemplated in S. 12 and the Rules. This belies his statement that he took the amount to the landlord but the landlord refused to receive it. His statement was rightly not believed because if the landlord has refused to receive payment, the appellant would have informed the Assistant Collector under S. 14-A (iii) and asked for protection. He did nothing of the kind. It is quite clear that he took advantage of the new Act to avoid payment of rent. For two first year he did so on the ground that the tube-well was not functioning according to the agreement. For the subsequent years he avoided payment on the ground that he was only required to pay 1/ 3 rd of the produce or its value. For every year a suit had to be filed and recoveries were only made through the Court. This establishes the very kind of conduct which is contemplated by S.9 (1)(ii) and which furnishes a ground for eviction of the tenant under S. 14-A (i).6. Mr. lyengar argues that S.9 (1) (ii) applies prospectively and the conduct of the tenant prior to the enactment of S. 14-A cannot be taken into account. In our opinion, the conduct of the tenant prior to the coming into form of the new section can be taken into account. No doubt a statute must be applied prospectively. But a statute is not applied retrospectively because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a moment of time prior to its passing. The clause in question makes a particular conduct the ground for an application for eviction. The necessary condition for the application of S.9(1)(ii) may commence even before the Act came into force and past conduct, which is as relevant for the clause as conduct after the coming into force of the Act. cannot be overlooked. The Tribunals were, therefore, right in considering conduct of the appellant prior to the coming into force of S.14-A while determining whether the appellant was irregular in paying the rent.7. Mr. lyengar next contends that as under cl. (ii) of S. 14-A the appellant was asked to pay the arrears of rent and he paid them within the time fixed, no eviction can be ordered. Clause (ii) deals with eviction as punishment for non-compliance with the orders of the Court. Clause (i) deals with evictions for any of the reasons given in S. 9 (1). One such reason is that the tenant has failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. Eviction under the second clause is for failure to carry out the orders to deposit arrears of rent within the time fixed for payment and eviction under the first clause is a penalty for not paying the rent regularly without sufficient cause. The clauses are on different-footing and as the scheme of the Act itself shows different Tribunals determine the two issues. The appellant tried to have the various proceedings consolidated in the same Court, but curiously enough he asked that the proceedings for the recovery of arrears of rent should be stayed. His motive is quite apparent. He wanted to defend himself against liability arising under S. 9 (1)(i) on the ground that he could not pay the rent till 1/ 3rd of the produce or its value was determined under the Rules. We have said above that his statement was that he wanted to pay the exact amount but the landlord did not receive it. It is quite obvious that he avoided payment over the years under one pretext or the other and the Tribunals were right in holding that he had failed to make out sufficient cause for non-payment. Indeed such a finding given concurrently by the High Court and the three Tribunals below would be sufficient for the disposal of the case. We have only allowed the argument to be raised because Mr. Iyengar claimed that conditions on which persons can be evicted under the two clauses of S. 14-A, were inconsistent. On examination it is apparent that the reasons for eviction under the two clauses are entirely different. The appellant could not be evicted under the second clause of S. 14-A but it is obvious that his case is covered by the first clause. The irregularity in payment is patent and there was no sufficient cause.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our opinion, the conduct of the tenant prior to the coming into form of the new section can be taken into account. No doubt a statute must be applied prospectively. But a statute is not applied retrospectively because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a moment of time prior to its passing. The clause in question makes a particular conduct the ground for an application for eviction. The necessary condition for the application of S.9(1)(ii) may commence even before the Act came into force and past conduct, which is as relevant for the clause as conduct after the coming into force of the Act. cannot be overlooked. The Tribunals were, therefore, right in considering conduct of the appellant prior to the coming into force of S.14-A while determining whether the appellant was irregular in paying the(ii) deals with eviction as punishment for non-compliance with the orders of the Court. Clause (i) deals with evictions for any of the reasons given in S. 9 (1). One such reason is that the tenant has failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. Eviction under the second clause is for failure to carry out the orders to deposit arrears of rent within the time fixed for payment and eviction under the first clause is a penalty for not paying the rent regularly without sufficient cause. The clauses are on different-footing and as the scheme of the Act itself shows different Tribunals determine the two issues. The appellant tried to have the various proceedings consolidated in the same Court, but curiously enough he asked that the proceedings for the recovery of arrears of rent should be stayed. His motive is quite apparent. He wanted to defend himself against liability arising under S. 9 (1)(i) on the ground that he could not pay the rent till 1/ 3rd of the produce or its value was determined under the Rules. We have said above that his statement was that he wanted to pay the exact amount but the landlord did not receive it. It is quite obvious that he avoided payment over the years under one pretext or the other and the Tribunals were right in holding that he had failed to make out sufficient cause for non-payment. Indeed such a finding given concurrently by the High Court and the three Tribunals below would be sufficient for the disposal of the case. We have only allowed the argument to be raised because Mr. Iyengar claimed that conditions on which persons can be evicted under the two clauses of S. 14-A, were inconsistent. On examination it is apparent that the reasons for eviction under the two clauses are entirely different. The appellant could not be evicted under the second clause of S. 14-A but it is obvious that his case is covered by the first clause. The irregularity in payment is patent and there was no sufficient cause.