JUDGMENT 1. The petition involves interpretation and construction of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This provision was inserted vide Section 2 of the Rajasthan Act No. 34 of 1987 and came into force with effect from 22.5.1987. 2. This section gives a right to a landlord who was a member of the armed forces of the Union, his war widow or his other legal representative to recover immediate possession in certain cases. For facility of reference, this section is reproduced hereunder upto sub-section (12) which calls for interpretation for the purposes of questions involved in the petition:- "16. This section gives a right to a landlord who was a member of the armed forces of the Union, his war widow or his other legal representative to recover immediate possession in certain cases. For facility of reference, this section is reproduced hereunder upto sub-section (12) which calls for interpretation for the purposes of questions involved in the petition:- "16. Right of landlord to recover immediate possession in certain cases - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract or usage, a landlord who was a member of the armed forces of the Union, his war widow, or his other legal representative shall, on an application being made in this behalf, be entitled to obtain an immediate order of ejectment of the tenant from the premises let out by such member and to recover immediate possession thereof on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that he has retired from service (which term shall include compulsory or voluntary retirement) - (i) within a period of one year prior to the date of commencement of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1987 hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Act, or, as the case may be, the date of making of such application; or (ii) at any time prior to the commencement of the said Act subject to there being no agreement of lease in writing concerning such premises subsisting at the time of making such application and such premises having not been let out to the present tenant on or after the date of such retirement; and that such premises are required for the use and occupation of himself or his family members; or (b) that she is the war widow of a member of the armed forces of the Union and such premises are required for the use and occupation of such war widow; or (c) that he is a legal representative (not being a war widow) of a member of the armed forces of the Union and such member has died during the course of employment within a period of one year prior to the date of commencement of the said Act or, as the case may be, the date of making such application and that such premises are required for the use and occupation of such legal representative; Provided that where the possession of the premises is so recovered and such premises are not occupied for a period of three months from the date of such recovery for other than bonafide reasons or are again let out within a period of three years from such date the tenant ejected from such premises shall on an application being made in this behalf to the Magistrate making the order of ejectment be entitled to the restoration of possession of such premises to him on the original terms and conditions and the landlord shall be liable to such fine not exceeding two thousand rupees as such Magistrate considers reasonable. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as conferring a right on a landlord owning in the same city or town two or more premises to recover the possession of more than one of them. The landlord shall in that case indicate the premises of which he intends to recover possession from the tenant. (3) A certificate issued by the Head of the service in which the member of the armed forces was last employed or by is Commanding Officer to the effect that such member or his war widow or his other legal representative requires the premises for the use and occupation of himself or herself or the family members of such member on any of the grounds specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. (4)(a) Every application by a landlord for ejectment of his tenant on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) shall be made to the District Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area where the premises are situate and it shall contain the following particulars, namely:- (i) the names and particulars of the landlord and the tenant; (ii) sufficient description of the premises from which the tenant is to be ejected; and (iii) the ground of eviction. (b) A copy of the certificate obtained by the landlord under sub- section (3) shall be attached to the application. (c) The application shall be verified in the manner prescribed for verification of a plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908). (5)(a) The District Magistrate shall issue notice of every application referred to in sub-section (4) to the tenant fixing a date for his appearance. The District Magistrate shall in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of such notice also issue a notice to be served by registered post, acknowledgement due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case so require, also direct the publication of the notice in a newspaper having circulation in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain. (b) When an acknowledgement purported to have been signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the District Magistrate or the registered article containing the notice is received back with an endorsement purported to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent has refused to take delivery of the registered article, the District Magistrate may declare that there has been a valid service of the notice. (6) The tenant, on whom the notice has been served (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post), shall not be entitled to contest the application for eviction unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest such application and obtains leave from the District Magistrate as hereinafter provided. In default of his appearance in pursuance of the notice or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to have been admitted by the tenant and the District Magistrate shall forthwith make an order for ejectment of the tenant on the ground mention in the application. (7) The District Magistrate may grant to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for ejectment on any of the ground mentioned in sub-section (1). (8) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the District Magistrate shall immediately commence the hearing on the application and shall decide it, as far as practicable, within two months of such commencement. (9) If the District Magistrate is satisfied that the ground on which ejectment is sought is correct, he shall make an order for ejectment of the tenant from the premises and for restoring immediate possession thereof to the landlord. If the District Magistrate is not satisfied regarding the correctness of the ground, he shall dismiss the application. (10) If the District Magistrate allows the application and makes an order for ejectment of the tenant, he shall take immediate and suitable steps for the ejectment of the tenant from the premises and for the restoration of possession thereof to the landlord within a period of forty-five days and for that purpose may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. (11) No appeal shall lie against an order for ejectment of the tenant made by the District Magistrate under this section : Provided that the District Judge for the purpose of satisfying himself that an order made by the District Magistrate under this section is according to law may call for the record of the case within thirty days of the order and make such order in respect thereto as he thinks fit. (12) Where no application has been made to the District Judge in revision, the District Magistrate may exercise the powers of review in accordance with the provisions of Order 47 of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908)." 3. The petitioner under the abovesaid provision brought a petition for ejectment of the respondent No. 1 on 21.3.1990. This petition has been placed on the record as Annex. 1. Respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the notice appeared before the District Magistrate, Jodhpur who has the jurisdiction under the above said provision to decide the matter. On appearance, respondent No. 1 on 7.8.1990 filed an application for leave to defend under sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the Act which application was refused by the order dated 4.12.1990. A revision was filed against this order before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur which was allowed on 3.8.1991 and leave to defend was granted. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a claim to which the petitioner desired to file a rejoinder. The request was allowed by the learned District Magistrate vide the order dated 21.7.1992. This order was also challenged by way of revision before the learned District Judge and the said revision was allowed vide the order dated 5.3.1993 and the same has been placed on the record as Annex. 2. 4. Vide Annex. 2 the learned District Judge gave directions to the learned District Magistrate to hear the application again and then pass a reasoned order. The petitioner raised an objection before the learned District Judge that the impugned order before him was not an order passed under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to hear the revision petition. The learned District Judge, however, held that the revision was maintainable and that the court had the jurisdiction to hear the same. The learned District Judge, however, held that the revision was maintainable and that the court had the jurisdiction to hear the same. The petitioner, however, did not challenge the order and after the remand, the matter was heard by the learned District Magistrate and the request of the petitioner to file rejoinder was granted vide the order dated 6.7. 1993 (Annex. 3). 5. It was again the turn of respondent No. 1 to file a revision petition which came up before the learned District Judge for decision and the objections were again raised that the order under challenge was not one passed under Section 16 of the Act and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable. The objections were again turned down and it was held that the revision petition against the impugned order was maintainable under sub-section (11) of Section 16 of the above said Act. The revision petition was allowed vide the order dated 19.3.1994 which has been placed on the record as Annex. 4 and has been challenged in this writ petition as wholly without jurisdiction. 6. It is said in the petition that the provisions of Section 16 prescribe a complete procedure for ejectment of the tenant and there is no provision for filing a rejoinder to the reply of the tenant and the same could be filed only under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure under Order 8 Rule 9 and thus, no revision could lie before the learned District Judge. 7. No return has been placed on record from the side of the respondents. 8. While laying challenge to the impugned order, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the order was liable to be struck down as wholly without jurisdiction since the order of the learned District Magistrate was not passed under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act and further proceeds to submit that such type of interlocutory orders are not permitted to be challenged under the provisions of sub-section (11) of Section 16 of the Act and the learned District Judge has the powers of revision only against the final order of ejectment which may be passed under this provision ordering ejectment of the tenant. 9. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant respondent No. 1 submits that a reading of sub-section (11) of Section 16 of the Act makes it clear that the learned District Judge for the purposes of satisfying himself that the order made by the learned District Magistrate is according to law or not can call for the record of the case and make such order in respect thereto as he thinks fit. It is next submitted that on earlier two occasions the orders were passed by the learned District Magistrate and were challenged under the same provision and were set aside by the learned District Judge in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the provisions of sub-section (11) and, thus, the petitioner could not be permitted to now urge that the learned District Judge lacks inherent jurisdiction to decide the matter in revision. 10. It is under this situation that provisions of Section 16 as reproduced above in the order need close examination and scrutiny. Learned counsel for the parties have not been able to cite any case decided by this Court on the point and I myself tried to find out if any case had been decided earlier involving the questions and I have also not been able to lay my hands on any case decided by this Court in this respect. 11. It would be necessary at this stage to look into the objects and reasons for which this special provision was inserted in the statute. The provision has been brought on the statute book in order to enable the retired members of the armed forces and their dependents, to seek ejectment of their tenants in a summary manner by making an application to the District Magistrate. The Government decided to amend the Act and the provisions are intended to benefit a certain class to recover immediate possession of the premises let out, on the ground that the premises were required for use and occupation of such member of the armed forces or his heirs. 12. The Government decided to amend the Act and the provisions are intended to benefit a certain class to recover immediate possession of the premises let out, on the ground that the premises were required for use and occupation of such member of the armed forces or his heirs. 12. I have also examined some what similar provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Act and also analogous provisions as contained in Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as well as of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and a combined reading of all these provisions tends to show that the benefit is desired to be conferred only on those members of the armed forces who are landlords of the premises in question and the object of enacting appears to be that the members of the armed forces should not while they are in service feel worried about the difficulty of a long driven legal battle when they wish to get back the premises which they have leased out during their service. 13. They are often posted at non-family stations and are liable to be transferred from one place to another in different parts of the country. In the given situation and on account of exigencies of their service they let out their premises while away from their homes and the Government of the day realised this difficulty and made this special provision that on their retirement they do not find it difficult to get back the possession of their houses which they would of course require for their personal occupation and for housing their family members after retirement. 14. The provision further benefits not only the defence personnel while in service or ex-service personnel but also the widows and other heirs. 15. It is too well known that the members of the defence services render very difficult services to the country and a different type of treatment was intended to be given to them for getting their houses vacated in summary process and the procedure was, thus, simplified and made more effective. Keeping in view these objects and reasons in mind the matter has now to be examined as to how the provisions of Section 16 provided a complete code and procedure from the filing of the ejectment petition till the possession is given over to the landlord. 16. Keeping in view these objects and reasons in mind the matter has now to be examined as to how the provisions of Section 16 provided a complete code and procedure from the filing of the ejectment petition till the possession is given over to the landlord. 16. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act is the non-obstente clause which overrides the effect of any inconsistent provision of law contained in any other law for the time being in force, even contract and usage. The non-obstente clause will have the overriding effect in respect of inconsistent provision of this very Act and it is in the light of this it has to be seen that the right has been conferred on the landlord to obtain immediate order of ejectment of the tenant from the premises and to recover immediate possession thereof on any of the grounds mentioned therein. 17. The words right of the landlord to recover immediate possession and the words used in sub-section (1) "be entitled to obtain an immediate order of ejectment of the tenant" have to be given some meaning, if the intention of the Legislature is to be taken care of. 18. Under sub-section (4) the application filed by the landlord is to be submitted to the District Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area and attached to it should be the certificate which the landlord has obtained under sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act. 19. Under sub-section (5) the District Magistrate concerned shall issue process to the respondent tenant and under sub-section (b) of sub-section (5) even the endorsement made by the postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent has refused to take delivery of the registered article, the District Magistrate may declare that there has been a valid service of the notice. 20. Under sub-section (6) it is said that the tenant on whom the notice has been served shall not be entitled to contest (emphasis supplied) the application for eviction, unless an affidavit is filed stating the grounds on which the tenant seeks to contest such application and obtains leave from the District Magistrate as provided. 20. Under sub-section (6) it is said that the tenant on whom the notice has been served shall not be entitled to contest (emphasis supplied) the application for eviction, unless an affidavit is filed stating the grounds on which the tenant seeks to contest such application and obtains leave from the District Magistrate as provided. A reading of sub-section (6) clearly makes out that no right is conferred on the tenant to contest the application and it is only under the given situation that the District Magistrate would consider whether to grant or not to grant the leave to contest after considering the contents of the affidavit and as I look at the matter the contents of the affidavit should be such which on its reading would make out a case which would disentitle the landlord to seek the ejectment of the tenant. 21. Under sub-section (7) as stated above the leave may be granted to the tenant to contest the application. Here also, the words used by the Legislature are "may grant" and would in no case mean that every application or prayer for the grant of leave to contest the application has to be allowed. It is, thus, left to the discretion of the District Magistrate. 22. Next comes yet another important provision which is contained in sub- section (8) and a reading of it makes out that even where the leave has been granted to the tenant to contest the application, the District Magistrate shall immediately commence the hearing on the application and shall decide it, as far as practicable, within two months of such commencement. (emphasis supplied). A reading of this provision in between the words once again emphasises the importance of the objects which were sought to be achieved by inserting the provisions of Section 16 in the statute. It would mean that even where the leave has been granted to the tenant to contest the application, the proceedings are ordered to commence immediately and the petition is to be disposed of within two months of such commencement. The language leaves no scope for further interpretation or construction then the plain language and its ordinary meaning. It would, thus, follow that even where the leave has been granted the hearing has to commence at once and with speed so as to reach the ultimate decision within two months from the commencement of the hearing. 23. The language leaves no scope for further interpretation or construction then the plain language and its ordinary meaning. It would, thus, follow that even where the leave has been granted the hearing has to commence at once and with speed so as to reach the ultimate decision within two months from the commencement of the hearing. 23. It is thereafter that under sub-section (9) the District Magistrate on being satisfied about the grounds of ejectment of the tenant from the premises order restoring immediate possession thereof to the landlord and in case he is not satisfied regarding the correctness of the grounds, the application shall have to be dismissed. 24. Next comes another important provision, whereafter an order of ejectment has been passed by allowing the application immediate and suitable steps have to be taken by the learned District Magistrate for ejectment from the premises and for restoring the possession thereof to the landlord within 45 days and for that purpose the use of such force is permitted as may be necessary under the circumstances. The cumulative effect in reading down the aforesaid provisions would mean that the entire proceedings and process from the commencement of the hearing till actual delivery of possession have to be completed within 105 days. 25. In sequence, now comes the provision of sub-section (11) where the remedy of revision is provided for. Precisely it is this provision under which the orders were passed by the learned District Judge setting aside the orders passed by the learned District Magistrate earlier. This sub-section specifically lays down that no appeal shall lie against an order of ejectment of the tenant made by the learned District Magistrate under this section. It would, thus, follow that the right of appeal has not been provided for against the order of ejectment, under the proviso to this sub-section, the learned District Judge has been given the jurisdiction to send for the record of the case for the purposes of satisfying himself that the order made by the learned District Magistrate under this section is according to law or not after examining the same he can make such order in respect thereto as he thinks fit. 26. The proviso has to be read as part of the section where no right of appeal has been granted against an order of ejectment. 26. The proviso has to be read as part of the section where no right of appeal has been granted against an order of ejectment. It, thus, makes it clear that it would only be against the final order of ejectment a revision would lie to the District Judge and no other meaning can be given to this provision. 27. The matter can be looked from another angle also. If the Legislature had intended to make every order passed by the learned District Magistrate open to challenge under revision before the learned District Judge from the commencement of hearing of the petition under Section 16 till final order of ejectment then the whole purpose and object of enacting this special provision would become useless. As already analysed above the provision is intended for quick disposal within a time bound schedule and culmination of the entire process. If we would allow every order or any order passed during the hearing open to challenge under revision under the proviso to sub-section (11) it would amount to laying down a fresh provision thereby completely eroding the purpose and object for which this special provision has been made. In my opinion, I would read down the proviso in the sense that it is against a final order or ejectment that the tenant can file a revision petition and at the time of filing of the revision petition against the final order of ejectment a challenge may also be made to all other incidental orders against which the tenant has a grievance. 28. The learned District Judge, though an objection was raised at the hearing that the revision petition was not maintainable before him still went ahead to examine the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned District Magistrate and wrongly held that the revision petition was maintainable and that he has the jurisdiction to decide the revision. The learned District Judge appears to have misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the provision and exceeded his power and authority in entertaining the revision petition and allowing the same consequently setting aside the orders passed by the learned District Magistrate. The learned District Magistrate at the very first instance made an order refusing to grant the leave to the tenant to contest the application. A revision filed against which was allowed and the leave to contest was granted. The learned District Magistrate at the very first instance made an order refusing to grant the leave to the tenant to contest the application. A revision filed against which was allowed and the leave to contest was granted. This order of course was not challenged by the petitioner landlord and may be that he accepted the order and have the proceedings finalised before the learned District Magistrate rather than wasting further time in making a challenge to the order of the learned District Judge. In my opinion, the learned District Magistrate after refusing to grant leave to contest the application to the tenant should have forthwith ordered ejectment of the tenant as envisagted by sub-section (6) and in that situation a challenge could be made to both these orders. It appears that he too lost sight of the intent of the Legislature and kept the case pending which led the respondent tenant to challenge the order in revision which was allowed and leave granted. It is, thus, made clear that in all cases where the District Magistrate under this provision refuses to grant leave to the tenant he has to make an order of ejectment forthwith and not allow any confusion of the kind. 29. Thereafter the petitioner made a prayer to file rejoinder, although there is no provision under Section 16 permitting the landlord to file rejoinder to the claim made by the tenant, but the learned District Magistrate allowed this prayer. It was for the District Magistrate to see whether the permission to file rejoinder could be granted or not. He exercised a discretion and some times under such special provision the courts have to evolve a procedure which is not against the spirit of the provisions contained in the Act and possibly the claim made by the tenant might have given rise to the petitioner to seek indulgence of the court to place the rejoinder on record which was allowed. This order was again challenged and set aside by the learned District Judge under proviso to sub-section (11) and the case was remanded back for passing fresh order keeping in view the directions handed down in that respect. The prayer for filing rejoinder was again allowed and on revision by the tenant the order has again been set aside partly which the petitioner has now challenged. The prayer for filing rejoinder was again allowed and on revision by the tenant the order has again been set aside partly which the petitioner has now challenged. The order passed by the learned District Judge and the earlier order passed by him dated 5.3.1993 (Annex. 2) are said to be wholly without jurisdiction. 30. It is not understood as to how the learned District Judge proceeded ahead to give altogether a different meaning to a plain language used in the proviso and without caring to read the section and its object. I cannot restrain myself from noticing the most unfortunate part of the whole case as I find that the proceedings were initiated by the petitioner by filing an ejectment petition on 31.3.1990. The proceedings have not been permitted to proceed further because of the three orders having been challenged, entertained and set aside by the learned District Judge and the process has taken about 5 years. All this process goes to negative the intent of the Legislature in a valuable time has been lost because of the erroneous approach of the learned District Judge in the matter. As I read sub-section (11) of Section 16 of the scope of revision has been made very restricted and limited. The learned District Judge has been given a power to send for the record and thereafter he shall find out whether the order of ejectment that has been passed is in accordance with law. He is permitted and can examine only the legality or illegality of the order and the matter is not permitted to be examined beyond this. 31. Though the earlier order passed by the learned District Judge granting leave to the respondent tenant has not specifically been challenged before me in this writ petition, but the view I have taken on the reading of this provision makes out that the said order could not be passed. Be that, as it may, since the petitioner landlord has not made any specific challenge to that order and the leave has been granted and on the strength of that order, thereafter the tenant has filed a claim and has been permitted to contest. I restrain myself to comment about it in these proceedings. 32. Be that, as it may, since the petitioner landlord has not made any specific challenge to that order and the leave has been granted and on the strength of that order, thereafter the tenant has filed a claim and has been permitted to contest. I restrain myself to comment about it in these proceedings. 32. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are hereby quashed as wholly without jurisdiction and having been passed in utter abuse of the process of law. The learned District Magistrate, Jodhpur is directed to proceed ahead with the hearing of this case without any further loss of time and dispose it of punctually within the time schedule as provided for in Section 16 of the Act. 33. The petition, thus, stands allowed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Magistrate on 5.12.1994. A copy of this order be sent to the learned District Magistrate forthwith.Petition allowed. *******