RAM PARKASH Vs. SURINDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter was referred to a larger Bench by my order dated January 23, 1981, for the reasons indicated therein which maybe, briefly, recapitulated. A decree for eviction of the petitioner Ram Parkash who was a tenant under Shrimati Surender Sharma respondent in two godowns, a compound and a passage situated at Samrala was passed in favour of the landlord by a Civil Court, i.e. subordinate Judge first class, Samrala. The decree-holders proceeded to execute the decree and in these proceedings, the petitioner- judgment-debtor filed an objection petition under Section 47 of the code of civil Procedure, urging mainly that the execution of the decree was barred on account of the provisions of Section 13 91) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949(hereinafter referred as to the Act or the Rent Act). the decree-holder, however, asserted that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the present case as the building in question was exempt from the provisions of the said Act on account of the fact that the disputed building has been constructed within five years from the date of the institution of the suit. The landlord further contended that the Civil Court was competent to pass a decree and to execute the same. The matter was considered by the executing court who dismissed the objection petition-judgment-debtor. The present Revision petition was, therefore, filed impugning the said order of the executing Court.

(2.) It may be of assistance to note here that by means of a Notification No. 13701-A-4CI-70/13158 dated November 29, 1970, it was prescribed that the provisions of Section 13 of the Act shall not apply to buildings exempted from the purview of the Act for a period of five years, in respect of decrees passed by the Civil courts in suits for ejectment of tenants, whether such decrees were or are passed during the period of exemption or at any time thereafter. Another Notification No. 5818-4CI-71/10565 dated June 21, 1971 was promulgated as per which the President of India granted exemption to every building constructed during the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 from the provisions of the Act for a period of five years from the date of its completion. The min argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the building in dispute fell within the category mentioned in the above Notifications and hence, the Rent Act was not applicable to the same and as a necessary consequence the decree passed by the Civil Court was not executable in view of the bar under the Rent Act.

(3.) It is not disputed that a decree for possession of the demised premises was passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner on July 30, 1977 by the Civil Court, i.e. subordinate Judge first Class, Samrala. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who affirmed the decree of the trial Court on November 10, 1979. There is further no contest on the point that the petitioner-judgment-debtor pursued the matter right up to the High Court praying for the stay of his dispossession during the execution proceedings, but his prayer was declined by this Court vide order dated December 11, 1979. It is nobody's case that the matter was taken further to the Supreme Court. As a result of the above, the judgment of the Civil Court directing the eviction of the petitioner had become final for all intents and purposes.