YASH PAL Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The shop in dispute is situated within Malsian, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jullundur. On 10th of April, 1981, Kehar Singh who was the owner and landlord of the shop, filed a civil suit for ejectment of Yash Pal, Inderjit and Pawan Kumar, in which it was pleaded that Yash Pal had taken the premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 120 per month for a period of 11 months, vide rent-note dated 12th of March, 1971 and that he had subject the premises to defendant Nos. 2 and 3. This suit was filed after service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Both the Courts below ordered ejectment of the tenant as also the sub-tenants besides granting a decree for recovery of arrears of rent which was claimed in the suit. This is second appeal by all the three defendants.

(2.) Mr. Balbir Singh Shant appearing for the appellants has urged that Malsian was declared to be a notified area committee, vide notification of the State Government dated 20th of March, 1979, and that was cancelled by notification dated 7th October, 1980, and the order of cancellation was challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 4751 of 1981 Pawan Kumar etc. v. Sub - Divisional Officer (Civil) Nakodar etc.) which has been allowed today, and thereby notification cancelling the creation of notified area, has been quashed with the result that the original notification dated 20th of March, 1979 issued under section 241 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1971, again comes into being with the further result that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , will be deemed to he applicable to the place situate within the notified area of Malsian including the shop in dispute and, therefore, no civil suit for ejectment was competent and the only remedy of the landlord was under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . The aforesaid argument of Mr. Shant is refuted by Mr. S.C. Khungar who appears for the landlord. He urges that no such point was raised before any of the two Courts below and, therefore, it should not be allowed to be raised at the stage of second appeal. It is true that the point was not raised before any of the two Courts below but the fact of the matter is that when suit was filed there was no notified area committee and probably the defendants were not aware of the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 4751 of 1981 (Pawan Kumar's case supra) in this Court but when Mr. Balbir Singh Shant filed this second appeal since he was the counsel in the aforesaid Writ petition also, he took up the ground in this second appeal also on the basis of that writ petition aid that is why it was ordered that this appeal he posted for hearing with the aforementioned writ petition.

(3.) It is well settled rule that all subsequent events have to be taken note of and specially about the existence of notification. Regarding notifications, even judicial notice can he taken of. Once I have quashed the notification cancelling the creation of Malsian as a notified area, it cannot be disputed that when the suit was filed or was decreed by the two Courts below or even today, it will have to be deemed that there was notified area committee and, as such, for ejectment of a tenant the remedy of a landlord would be only under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . Even if the technical objection of Mr. Khungar was to be accepted, it would have been open to the tenant to raise objection in execution that the only mode of ejectment of a tenant is by establishing ground under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , and no other. In this case, the order of ejectment was not passed on the ground of subletting but merely because the landlord had terminated the tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in not allowing the point to be raised at this stage and in delaying the matter for the point to be raised during execution. Multiplicity of proceedings has to be avoided whenever possible. Accordingly, Mr. Shant was allowed to raise the point which is of merit as discussed above.