Honble RAVANI, CJ. — While interpreting the provisions of any statute, what should be the approach of the Court? Should the Court adopt literal grammarian approach notwithstanding the fact that by adopting such approach the very object of the Act may be frustrated? Or, the approach should be to consider the history of the legislature, scheme of the Act, object underlying the provisions, the context in which the expression or words used in the concerned Section occurred, and thereby to discern the true intention of the legislature? This in short, is the question which has surfaced in this Revision Petition which has come up before Division Bench on account of a question having been referred to larger Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court. (2). Following question has been referred to Division Bench by learned Single Judge (Coram GS Singhvi, J.) as per order dated August 27, 1992 : — "Whether the order passed under S. 13(5) striking out the defence of a tenant against eviction would apply to all grounds of eviction specified in S. 13(1) (a) to (1) and other laws or such striking out is limited to the defence against eviction on the ground specified in S. 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950?" (3). The question has arisen in the backdrop of the facts that follow and in view of the conflict between two decisions of this High Court, one in the case of Desraj vs. Om Prakash & Anr. (1), and another in the case of Inder Chand vs. Smt. Lilawati (2). The facts in brief: (4) The respondents filed a suit for eviction of suit premises i.e. a shop situated in Bharatpur, inter alia on the ground of: (1) Default in payment of rent (2), Reasonable and bona fide personal requirement of the landlord, (3) Sub-letting of the premises by tenant, and (4) Denial of title of the landlord by the tenant. The Trial Court framed 14 issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. On April 14, 1982 (however in the referring order the date mentioned is 4.4.1984, which do not seem to be correct), the Trial Court passed an order under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Rajasthan Act) determining the provisional rent. On April 14, 1982 (however in the referring order the date mentioned is 4.4.1984, which do not seem to be correct), the Trial Court passed an order under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Rajasthan Act) determining the provisional rent. Thereafter by order dated September 13, 1982 the Trial Court passed an order under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act and struck off the defence of petitioners-defendants. The evidence of plaintiffs was recorded and completed on April 16, 1991. Thereafter the case was adjourned for recording of evidence of the defendants for few days. Ultimately on January 6, 1992, when the defendants were present and were ready to depose, an objection was raised by the respon-dents-plaintiffs that the defence of petitioners = defendants was already struck off, therefore, they cannot be permitted to produce evidence whatsoever. On this point, after hearing the parties, the Trial Court passed order dated April 18, 1992 and held that the petitioners-defendants cannot be allowed to produce evidence on any issue except issue No.8 which related to arrears of rent and mesne profits. It is against this order passed by the Trial Court that the Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants. (5). When the Revision Petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, the conflict between two decisions of this High Court was pointed out. The learned Single Judge directed that the file be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench for deciding the aforesaid question. This is how the Revision Petition is before the Division Bench. Conflicting Decisions (i) Desraj vs. Om Prakash: (6). In the case of Desraj vs. Om Prakash (Supra), decree of eviction was passed on the ground of default of payment of arrears of rent. In this connection the learned Single Judge has mentioned the facts in paras 3 and 4 of the reported decision, which reads as follows : — "3. Add now traditional narrations. This is a revision petition u/s. 115, CPC, against the order of District Judge, Alwar, passed on 13th October 84, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 149/83. 4. It is common ground that from October 81 to July 82, an amount of Rs. 2600/- was deposited on 24.07.82 and not by the 15th day of the next month. This is a revision petition u/s. 115, CPC, against the order of District Judge, Alwar, passed on 13th October 84, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 149/83. 4. It is common ground that from October 81 to July 82, an amount of Rs. 2600/- was deposited on 24.07.82 and not by the 15th day of the next month. On the above premises, both the lower courts have found that the defence against eviction deserves to be struck off u/s. 13(4) & (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950." Thereafter the learned Single Judge referred to the provisions of Section 13 and Section 13A of the Rajasthan Act and in para 7 of the judgment came to the conclusion as follows : — "In my opinion, the deeming provision of section cannot be extended to sub-sections (3) & (4) Sec. 13 of the Act. The reason is obvious that the legislature made the amendment after sub-sections (3) & (4) were in existence, and if it wanted to extend the effect of the deeming provision, it should have and could have mentioned sub-section (3) & (4) also. Because there was a mention of clause (a), nothing prevented the legislature from mentioning sub-sections (3) & (4)." Thus it is evident that as held by the learned Single Judge, the effect of the striking off of the defence by the order passed under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act, was confined to the ground of eviction mentioned in Section 13(1) (a) only. Section 13(1) (a) of the Act reads as follows : — "Section 13 — Eviction of tenants: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied : — (a) That the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months;" In substance, the learned Judge held that the expression "defence against eviction to be struck out", occurring in Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act, had limited scope covering the ground of eviction under Section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act only and not other grounds mentioned in Section 13(l)(b) to (1). ii) Inder Chand vs. Smt. Lilawati : (7). The case of Inder Chand vs. Smt. Lilawati (supra) was revision petition arising out of a suit for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent and for reasonable and bona fide necessity of the premises. After the written statement was filed by the defendant, the Trial Court had passed an order determining the interim rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajathan Act. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had committed default in making payment of rent. Hence the plaintiff filed an application for striking off the defence. The Trial Court passed an order dated March 3, 1986 and struck off the defence of the defendant- tenant. The Trial Court held that the petitioner-defendant could not be permitted to lead evidence on any of the issues. In the opinion of Trial Court, if defendants were to be permitted to lead evidence, it would amount to re-consideration of the earlier order dated March 3, 1986, by which the defence w|as ordered to be struck off. (8). Before the learned Single Judge, decision of this Court in the case of Desraj vs. Om Prakash (supra) was cited. However, the learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Modula India vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo (3). It was a case arising out of the provisions of The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. According to the learned Single Judge the controversy was set at rest by the Honble Supreme Court in the decision of Modula India (supra) following the decision of Honble the Supreme Court and by referring to the language of Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act, the learned Single Judge held that if a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section(4) on the date or time specified therein, defence against eviction under Section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act as well as defence on other grounds will also stand struck off. In the opinion of learned Single Judge similar view was taken by another Single Bench of this Court in the case of Deshraj vs. Om Prakash & Anr (supra). iii) Deshraj -II (9). The case of Deshraj II was a case in which the tenant sought to reagitate the question as regards his right so far as the default in payment of rent was concerned. iii) Deshraj -II (9). The case of Deshraj II was a case in which the tenant sought to reagitate the question as regards his right so far as the default in payment of rent was concerned. This he sought to do on the ground that after the decision of High Court in revision, circumstances were changed and there was some change in law pursuant to subsequent Full Bench decision of the High Court. The Trial Court dismissed the application of tenant. Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal of tenant. In revision the learned Single Judge (Coram : NM Kasliwal, J., as he then was) refused to interfere with the orders passed by the lower courts and rejected the revision application on the ground that the question had become final between the parties when the High Court decided the earlier revision petition No. 676/84. Thus in that case, the question which has cropped up in this revision, was not before the Court. Therefore, this decision is not relevant for deciding the controversy in issue. Basis of decision in the case of Inder Chand: (10). Reading the decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Inder Chand vs. Smt. Lilawati (supra), it becomes evident that the learned Single Judge based his conclusion on two grounds; one is the language of Section 13(5) of Rajasthan Act, which according to the learned Single Judge was clear enough to indicate that in case of default in payment as per the order, whole defence against eviction will be struck off; and second is that in the opinion of learned Single Judge the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Modula India (supra), in which provisions of Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short the WB Act), were considered, set at rest the controversy. In the opinion of learned Single Judge the view taken by him was in confirmity with the decision of the Honble Supreme Court. Is the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Modula India (supra), applicable? (11). The decision of Supreme Court has been rendered in the context of provisions of Section 17 (3) of the WB Act. The question before the Supreme Court was as to what rights were available to the defendant-tenant (whose defence has been struck off)? Is the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Modula India (supra), applicable? (11). The decision of Supreme Court has been rendered in the context of provisions of Section 17 (3) of the WB Act. The question before the Supreme Court was as to what rights were available to the defendant-tenant (whose defence has been struck off)? The Full Bench of Calcutta High Court had held that the defendant-tenant cannot cross-examine the witnesses called by the plaintiff excepting on the point of the notice under Section 13(6) of the WB Act. The correctness of the view taken by the majority Judges in the Full Bench was contested before Honble Supreme Court. In this context the Supreme Court has rendered the decision. (12). There is vital difference between the provisions of the WB Act and the provisions of the Rajasthan Act. the WB Act was enacted "to provide for the regulation of certain incidents of tenancy of premises in Calcutta and some other areas in West Bengal." This is so stated in the preamble of the WB Act. While the Rajasthan Act has been enacted "to control eviction from, letting of, and rents for, certain premises in the State of Rajasthan ". The Rajasthan Act has been enacted to make provision in respect to the aforesaid matters and other ancillary matters. (13). Section 13 of the WB Act provides for grounds of eviction and they are enumerated in clauses (a) to (1) of Sub-section (1) of the Section. Section 13(1) (i) provides for ground of eviction in case of default made by a tenant in the payment of rent for two months within a period of twelve months or for two successive periods in cases where rent is not payable monthly. Section 17 of WB Act takes within its sweep all kinds of suit instituted by landlord "on any of the grounds referred to in section 13 of the WB Act." As provided in Section 17(1) and Section 17(2) of the WB Act, the tenant is required to make the payment of rent. The tenant has also been afforded further opportunity of applying to the Court as provided in Section 17(2A) (A) and seek extension of time for the payment of rent. The tenant has also been afforded further opportunity of applying to the Court as provided in Section 17(2A) (A) and seek extension of time for the payment of rent. Thereafter, sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the WB Act reads as follows:-"If a tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) within the time specified therein or within such extended time as may be allowed under clause (a) of sub-section (2A), or fails to deposit or pay any instalment permitted under clause (b) of sub-section (2A) within the time fixed therefor, the court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit." Again it may be noted that a provision has been made under Section 17A to set aside order striking out defence against delivery of possession. Further provision has been made in Section 17B by which the court is empowered to set aside decree in cases where defence against delivery of possession is struck out. Moreover provision is also made in Section 17D which empowers the court to set aside the decree passed on account of default in the payment of rent. | (14). In light of the aforesaid provisions of the WB Act the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Modula India (supra) is required to be read and understood. In para 4 of the reported decision the Supreme Court has referred to the provisions of Section 17 and discussed the same. It has thereafter reproduced the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the WB Act. The entire para 4 may be reproduced here in below: — "We may start by referring to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. When a suit] for eviction is filed under the Act against any tenant on any of the grounds specified in Section 13 of the Act, Section 17(1) imposes an obligation on the tenant to deposit into the Court or with the controller or pay to the landlord all arrears of rent due from him with interest within a specified period and also to continue to deposit or pay the current rent thereafter regularly month after month. Sub-section (2) provides a machinery for the determination of the amounts to be so paid or deposited, in case of dispute. Sub-section (2) provides a machinery for the determination of the amounts to be so paid or deposited, in case of dispute. Sub-sections (2A) and (2B) contain provisions enabling the Court, subject to certain restrictions, to extend the time for such deposit or payment or allow the deposit or payment to be made in instalments. If the tenant deposits or pays the amounts as above, he is protected from being evicted from the premises on the ground of non-payment of rent; sub-section (4). If, on the other hand, he fails to deposit any amount referred to above within the time permitted, the consequence set out in sub-section (3), will follow. That sub-section reads : "(3) If a tenant fails to deposit, or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) within the time specified therein or within such extended -time as may be allowed under clause (a) of sub-section (2A), or fails to deposit or pay any instalment permitted under clause (b) of sub-section (2A) within the time fixed therefor, the Court shall order the defence against delivery of possession to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit." It was in the context of the provisions of Section 17(1) of the WB Act which imposes obligation on the tenant against whom suit for eviction is filed under the Act "on any of the grounds specified in Section 13 of the WB Act to deposit into the Court or with the Controller or pay to the landlord all arrears of rent due from him with interest within a specified period." (15). As far as the provisions of the Rajasthan Act are concerned, Section 13(3) enjoins obligation upon the tenant to deposit the rent in court on the first day of hearing or on any other date as the court may fix in this behalf, only in cases where the suit for eviction is filed inter-alia on the grounds set-forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13. In other words, one of the grounds or sole ground of eviction must be default in payment of rent as per the provisions of Section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act. In other words, one of the grounds or sole ground of eviction must be default in payment of rent as per the provisions of Section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act. On the other hand in the WB Act, obligation is cast upon the tenant to deposit the rent in court in all types of suits whether the suit is filed only on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent or on any other ground. It needs to be noted that for attracting the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Act, it is necessary that one of the grounds for eviction must be as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 i.e. the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent for six months. If this is not one of the grounds of eviction in the suit, the provisions of Section 13(3), 13(4) and 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act would not be attracted at all. Such is not the situation as far as the provisions of the WB Act are concerned. Section 17(1) of the WB Act takes within its sweep all types of suits for eviction. Moreover, as indicated hereinabove, in the WB Act, further safeguard and protection is extended to the tenants when order is passed for striking off of the defence and also when a decree of eviction is passed on the ground of default in payment. Such safeguards and protections are absent in the Rajasthan Act. Thus, the interpretation placed by Honble the Supreme Court on the provisions of Section 17(3) of the WB Act, cannot be applied to the cases arising under the Rajasthan Act. Here reference may be made to a decision of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors (4). Therein the Honble Supreme Court inter alia observed that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. Similar principle is laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (5). What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. Similar principle is laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (5). In para 18 of the reported decision the Supreme Court has observed to the effect that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. See Lord Halsbury in Quinn vs. Leathern (6). In view of this settled legal position, the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Modula India (supra), would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and on that basis the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act cannot be interpreted. The language of Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act: (16). It is true that the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act, if literally construed, provides that the defence against eviction be struck off if the tenant fails to deposit or pay any amount referred to in sub-section (4) of the Rajasthan Act within the time specified therein. However, while interpreting the provisions of Section 13(5), the context in which the phrase "defence against eviction to be struck out", has to be taken into consideration. The history of legislature is also required to be taken into consideration. Moreover, the object of the Act is to be ascertained. From all these aspects the provision is required to be interpreted and the intention of the legislature has to be discovered. History of the legislation: (17). The history of legislature is also required to be taken into consideration. Moreover, the object of the Act is to be ascertained. From all these aspects the provision is required to be interpreted and the intention of the legislature has to be discovered. History of the legislation: (17). It is an undisputed position that in 1950 when the Rajasthan Act was enacted, the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 13 read as follows : — "If, on the first day fixed for the hearing of such a suit, the tenant expresses his intention to contest the same or if he fails to make the payment referred to in sub-section (4), the Court shall proceed with the hearing of the suit a.05.on the application of the landlord made at any stage of the suit and after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, make an order requiring the tenant to deposit in Court month by month the rent at rate at which it was last paid. On his failure to deposit rent for any month by the fifteenth day of the next following month, the Court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the suit." The aforesaid provision was amended by the Rajasthan Act No. 12 of 1965 and again by Act of 1975. Thus, ultimately the legislature has retained the provision of Section 13(5) in the present form. Be it noted that initially when sub-section (5) was enacted in the year 1950, the legislature provided that on failure of the tenant to deposit the rent as provided in the Act, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the suit." In the subsequent amendment the latter expression commencing with "and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not been defended the suit" has been deleted. Therefore, the amendment in the legislation indicates that the intention of the legislature is not that in case of the default committed by a tenant in complying with the order of the court, he may be visited with the consequences of shutting out of his defence on all the grounds of eviction. Therefore, the amendment in the legislation indicates that the intention of the legislature is not that in case of the default committed by a tenant in complying with the order of the court, he may be visited with the consequences of shutting out of his defence on all the grounds of eviction. It is evident that the legislature did not intend that the tenant should be deprived of his defence against eviction on all the grounds specified in Section 13(1) (a) to (1) of the Rajasthan Act. The intention of the legislature was to deprive the tenant to defent the suit only on the ground mentioned in Section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act. This is the reason why the legislature deleted the aforesaid expression in subsequent amendment. Liberal construction necessary: (18). This interpretation is consistent with the object of the Rajasthan Act. As indicated hereinabove, the Rajasthan Act has been enacted "to control eviction from, letting of, and rents for, certain premises in the State of Rajasthan" and also to provide for other ancillary matters. Thus, the preface of the Rajasthan Act indicates that the Act is enacted to extend protection to the tenants. As held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pandey Orson vs. Ram Chander Sahu & Ors. (7), beneficial provision extending protection to a class of citizens should be construed liberally. In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court, while interpreting the provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, inter alia observed as follows : — "6A. The provision is beneficial and the legislature intention is to extend protection to a class of citizens who are not in a position to keep their property to themselves in the absence of protection. Therefore, when the legislature is extending special protection to the named category, the Court has to give a liberal construction to the protective mechanism which would work out the protection and enable the sphere of protection to be effective than limit by the scope." The contextual interpretation (19). It needs to be noted that the expression "defence against eviction to be struck out" occurring in Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act is required to be interpreted in the context in which the provision occurs. In the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax, Orissa vs. M/s. N.C. Budharaja and Company and Anr. It needs to be noted that the expression "defence against eviction to be struck out" occurring in Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act is required to be interpreted in the context in which the provision occurs. In the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax, Orissa vs. M/s. N.C. Budharaja and Company and Anr. (8), the Honble Supreme Court has inter alia observed in para 28 of the reported decision to the effect that a statute cannot always be construed with the dictionary in one hand and the statute in the other. Regard must also be had to the scheme context and the legislative history of the provision. (20). If the provision is read in the proper context, it is difficult to give wider connotation to it so as to include all grounds of eviction. In view of the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act which provides that one of the grounds of eviction must be under Section 13(1) (a), it has got to be held that the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act would entail the consequences of defence being struck out only as regards the ground mentioned in Section 13(1) (a) is concerned. If this interpretation is not given, it would frustrate the object of the Act. As indicated hereinabove, the object of the Act is to extend protection to a certain class of citizens and particularly to control the eviction of premises. It is with this avowed object that the legislature has enacted the Act. After enacting the Act it has made suitable amendments. As indicated hereinabove, the amendments made by the legislature also indicates that the scope of the expression "defence against eviction to be struck out" cannot be wide so as to cover other grounds of eviction except the ground under Section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act. Literal interpretation to be avoided: (21). It is true that ordinarily the language of statute is required to be read and interpreted. However, it has to be kept in mind that the task of interpretation of statute is not a mechanical one. It is more than mere reading a mathematical formula. It is an attempt to discover the intention of the legislature from the language used by it. However, it has to be kept in mind that the task of interpretation of statute is not a mechanical one. It is more than mere reading a mathematical formula. It is an attempt to discover the intention of the legislature from the language used by it. While taking this exercise, it is required to be kept in mind that the language is at best an imperfect instrument for the expression of actual human thoughts. It is also idle to expect that the draftsman drafted it with divine prescience and perfect and unequivocal clarity. Therefore, court would endeavour to eschew literal construction if it produces manifest absurdity or unjust result. (22). In the instant case, if one were to give literal construction, absurd situation may arise. Suit for eviction may be on several grounds including the ground of non-payment of rent. If the" defence of the tenant is struck off and if he is not permitted to lead evidence on all the grounds, one or other situation can reasonable be imagined. As held by the learned Single Judge, following the decision of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Modula India (supra), even when the defence of the tenant is struck off, the tenant will be at liberty to cross- examine the plaintiff and his witnesses. By cross-examining the plaintiff and his witnesses the tenant may be in a position to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he had not committed any default in payment of rent or that there was no arrears of six months, so as to attract the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act. The Court may also ultimately come to the conclusion that the ground of eviction, as far as default in payment of rent is concerned, was not available to the plaintiff. But as the defendant-tenant may not have been allowed to lead evidence though the defendant-tenant may have a good case and the plaintiff-landlord may have a very week case on the ground of reasonable and personal requirement and on the ground of sub-letting and on the ground of denial of title of the landlord by the tenant, the plaintiff may succeed on these palpably weak grounds because there was no counter evidence by the tenant. Such a situation is never contemplated by the legislature. Such a situation is never contemplated by the legislature. Therefore, in order to avoid absurd results, the expression "defence against eviction to be struck out" occurring in Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act, is required to be given a restricted interpretation so as to take within its sweep only the ground mentioned in Section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act. Answer to the Question: (23). For the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the question referred to is as follows : — The order passed under Section 13(5) of the Rajasthan Act striking out the defence of a tenant against eviction, would apply only to the grounds of eviction specified in Section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Act. The question is answered accordingly. The case shall be placed before the appropriate Single Bench for proceeding further with the hearing of the case in accordance with law.