HANS RAJ SALIG RAM Vs. L NIRANJAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the respondent basing himself on the decision in 'Hari Kishan v. Amar Nath', 52 Punj L R 13, urges a preliminary objection that E. S. A. No. 337 of 1949 is not competent.

(2.) In 'Hari Kishan v. Amar Nath', 52 Punj L R 13', the Judgment-debtor raised an objection in the execution proceedings that he could not be evicted in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1047, except in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of that Act. The plea did not find favour either with the Executing Court or with the Court of the District Judge. Prom the order passed by the District Judge in appeal, Hart Kishan judgment-debtor preferred an appeal in this Court and in the appellate proceedings a preliminary objection was taken by the learned counsel for Amar Nath landlord that the appeal was not competent. In allowing the objection, Kapiir, J., said:

(3.) From a perusal of the report in 'Harikishan v. Amar Nath', 52 Punj L R 13, it appears that the Judgment in that case was based on the decision in 'Sant Prasad v. Bhawani Prasad' 43 All 403.