AJIT SINGH BABBAR Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 5/5/2022 (Annexure P-4) whereby the application of the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' - for short), has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the suit had been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the petitioner/ defendant under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ('Act of 1949' - for short), although the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 ('Act of 1995' - for short) had come in operation, as the tenancy commenced on 4/12/2015. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman versus M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/ Managing Trustee, 2012 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 811 and also the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Krishan Kumar and others versus Kamla Devi and others, 2016 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 525. Heard.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity and non-payment of rent. The suit had been filed under the Act of 1949 although there is no dispute that the Act of 1995 had come in operation and would be applicable to the instant case, as the tenancy commenced on 4/12/2015. It is well settled that mere nomenclature of the application would not be determinative of its maintainability, as it is the substance and not the form of the application, which would be material for adjudication. It has been held by this Court in the case of Krishan Kumar (supra) that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC cannot be allowed on the ground that the petition has been filed under the Act of 1949, but the Act of 1995 has come in operation.