Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in Banchhanidhi Samantrai vs Lachminarain Agarwala on 25 January, 1949Matching Fragments
Stress is naturally laid on the words "a person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy" and it is contended that the defendant fulfils the character of a tenant who continued in possession though the tenancy had been terminated. This contention, however, though, valid, does not help the defendant in resisting the plaintiff's right to evict him. The operative section which protects tenant is Section 6, which, in Sub-clause (a), provides that "he shall not be liable to be ejected, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except for non-payment of rent or breach of the conditions of the tenancy."
Mr. Rao's contention is that, despite the existence of a decree for eviction, the tenant is protected under this sub-clause and that so long as he is willing to pay the rent" he can continue to occupy the house. On a plain reading of the sub-clause, it appears to me that the tenant is protected from ejectment on any ground other than non-payment of rent or breach of the conditions of the tenancy, whether such ejectment is brought about by execution of a decree or otherwise. That this is the true construction of the sub-clause would be apparent from the use of the word "except". To me it appears that the only exception made in favour of the landlord is the failure of the tenant to pay rent or his committing a breach of the conditions of the tenancy. It was then pointed out that the second proviso to Section 5 indicates how a landlord may obtain exemption from the provisions of Sub-clause (a) in respect of any house. To seek relief under the proviso would be to beg the question because, as I read Sub-clause (a), the landlord incurs no disability to his right to evict the tenant if such right is founded on non-payment of rent. It is only in cases other than those excepted by the sub-clause, that he has to approach the Controller for exemption and not otherwise. This interpretation does no violence either to the language of the Act or the policy underlying the Act, which seeks "to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants".