(1.) IN this case, we are called upon to determine the impact of statutory changes on the right of a landlord to get his tenant evicted from a non -residential building through the help of a civil court.
(2.) THE Plaintiff -Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of the shop in dispute on the ground that the shop had been leased out by him to Shanti Narain, Appellant and Lekh Raj now deceased with effect from May 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972, on an annual rent of Rs. 2,500 and the agreed rent beyond October 1, 1971, remained unpaid. The Plaintiff -Respondent asserted that because of a notification issued under Section 3 of the East Punjab, Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the shop in dispute was exempted from the provisions of this Act because the same had been built in the year 1969. The arrears of rent along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum were claimed at Rs. 5,216.66. The landlord also asserted that he had sent notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the one meant for Lekh Raj (now deceased) was not accepted by him and the one meant for Shanti Narain Appellant had been served upon him.
(3.) THE learned trial Judge found on all the points against the Appellant but he allowed interest on the arrears of rent only at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. Consequently, the suit of the Plaintiff -Respondent No. 1 for ejectment of the Appellant from the shop in dispute and for arrears of rent including interest to the tune of Rs. 4,846 was decreed. The appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court. He came in second appeal which came up for hearing before me. In view of the importance of the question of law involved and some observations made by a learned Judge of this Court in Suresh Kumar v. Bhim Sain, 1978 P.L.R. 751, I was of the view that it would be proper if the case is decided by a Division Bench. Under orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the case has been placed before us for decision.