Wazir, C.J:— This is a revision application directed against the order of the trial Court dated 21st of Poh 2010 and arises out of a suit instituted by Bodh Raj plaintiff against Gurcharan Das defendant tenant for ejectment from a shop and for arrears of rent.
2. The plaintiff sued for ejectment on the ground that arrears of rent were due from the defendant and that the shop was needed by the plaintiff for his own occupation. The plaintiff, during the course of the suit, made an application on 21st Sawan 2010 praying that the defendant may be directed to deposit Rs. 400/- arrears of rent due from him for four months up to the end of Har 2010 and that he should be further directed to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- by the 15th of the next following month in the Court. The trial Court ordered that Rs. 400/- shall be deposited by the defendant before he can file his written statement. It appears that the defendant deposited Rs. 400/- in two instalments of Rs. 200/- each.
3. Another application was made by the plaintiff on 24th Assuj 2010 which purports to be an application for review of the previous oraer, but in fact this application was to the effect that the defendant should be asked to deposit the arrears of rent due up-to-date before he should be permitted to contest the ejectment suit. The trial Court has passed another order on 21st Poh by which the defendant has been asked to deposit Rs. 500/- in Court within 15 days from the date of the order and pay in Court the rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- month by month which should be deposited in Court by the 15th day of the next following month.
4. Against this order, a revision application has been filed and it is argued on behalf of the defendant applicant that the order of the trial Court is erroneous inasmuch as Section 12(4) of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 2009, had no application to suits where the plaintiff claimed ejectment on other grounds than the arrears of rent. According to the learned counsel sub-sec. (4) of S. 12 would be applicable to only those suits where the plaintiff based his suit for ejectment only on the ground that arrears of rent were due from the defendant.
5. In the present case the trial Court has ordered the defendant to deposit Rs. 500/- as arrears of rent. This order has been passed under S. 12(4). On perusal of the plaint, it appears' that the plaintiff based his claim for ejectment not only on the ground of arrears of rent due from the defendant but on another ground that the shop was needed by the plaintiff for his personal use. The question for consideration is whether a suit in which other grounds than the ground for non-payment of rent are taken for ejectment of the tenant could fall within the ambit of Section 12 of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 2009.
6. In order to find out the exact meaning of S. 12(4) it may be necessary to read this section along with the preceding sub-sections. This section provides for protection to the tenant not in respect of all suits for eviction but only in regard to those suits in which the landlord would not get a decree for possession but for clause (i) of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 11, that is to say, those suits in which the only ground which disentitles the defendant from the protection of the Act is that he has not paid the arrears of rent for two months.
7. Other suits in which the protection to the tenant is not available are mentioned in S. 11 from Clause (a) to Clause (h) and those suits do not fall within the purview of S. 12(1). Special protection is granted to the tenant who has not paid the arrears of rent by S. 12 and the Court under sub-s. (1) calls upon the tenant to deposit two months rent with interest and with the costs of the suit, within a specified time and if the tenant has complied with the orders of the Court the plaintiff's suit is dismissed under sub-s. (3) of S. 12.
8. Sub-s. (4) lays down that if the tenant contests the suit as regards the claim for ejectment, the plaintiff landlord may make an application at any stage of the suit for order on the tenant-defendant to deposit month by month rent at a rate at which it was last paid. The use of the article “the” with the word “suit” shows that the sub-s. (4) is dealing with the same suit as has been dealt with in the previous sub-section. In other words the Provisions of sub-s. (4) of S. 12 would be applicable only to those suits which are instituted for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, but if other grounds are taken up by the plaintiff for ejectment then sub-s. (4) of S. 12 would not be applicable.
9. In this view, we are supported by an authority of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reported as — ‘Miah Maulvi v. Sashanko Mohan’, AIR 1953 Cal 600 (A). Our Section 12 of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 2009, is word for word the same as Section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control Act of 1950 and it has been held by their Lordships in the above case that the type of suits contemplated by sub-s. (4) of S. 14 is the same as contemplated by sub-s. (1) of S. 14 which is clearly limited to suits in which the only ground which disentitles the defendant from the protection of the Act is that he has defaulted in the payment of rent for two months. Hence, where a suit for ejectment is based not only on the ground of default but also on the ground of bona fide requirement for the plaintiff's own use and occupation, an order under S. 14(4) cannot be passed.
10. As pointed out above the plaintiff in his plaint has sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the shop is required for his own use and occupation. The provisions of sub-section (4) of S. 12 would not be applicable to the present suit. We therefore, allow this application with costs and set aside the order passed by the trial Court on 21st Poh, 2010.
M.K.S
11. Application allowed.