RAM PRASAD VAIDYA Vs. BANSI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS U Defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for possession of the shop in dispute and for the recovery of the arrears of rent has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs -respondents riled the suit for the eviction of the Defendant from the shop, in dispute, and for the recovery of Rs. 1,620/ - as the arrears of rent or the compensation for the use and occupation of the premises from February 11, 1970 to February 11, 1973. It was alleged that the Plaintiff had leased out the shop to the Defendant on July 8, 1969 at the rate of Rs. 45/ - per mensem. The lease was for one year only and the Defendant paid the rent in advance for the first month ending on August 8, 1969 Thereafter, the Defendant did not pay any rent, nor did he vacate the premises despite several demands made by the Plaintiff It was further alleged that the shop, in suit, was constructed in June, 1969, and, therefore, the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, here not applicable, hence the present suit. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the tenancy in the shop did not commence on July 8, 1969, as alleged. It was further pleaded that the shop, in dispute, was constructed prior to the year 1968 and, therefore, the same was not exempt from the provisions of the Act. Thus, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass any decree. The trial Court found that the shop, in suit, was constructed sometime in the year 1968 or 1969 and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not attracted to the present case in view of the notification published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated June 21, 1971. It was further found that the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover the arrears of rent as claimed by them In view of these findings, the Plaintiffs' suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of the Plaintiffs. However it was observed that since the notification produced by the parties during the trial related to the Punjab State whereas the premises were situated in the State of Haryana, the said notification was of no avail to the Plaintiffs, but in any case, even though the eviction of a tenant is barred by the relevant provisions of the Act applicable to the State, a civil suit of this nature was not barred and a civil Court could pass a decree of eviction even though the tenant may, under the relevant provisions of the Rent Laws, resist his actual eviction by execution of the decree, with these observations, the appeal filed on behalf of the Defendant was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Respondents also relied upon Suresh Kumar v. Jagjit Singh, 1981 (2) R.C.J. 359 and Shanti Narain v. Jai Dayal : A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1548. In both these cases the said notification issued by the Governor of Haryana was noticed and also the effect of the Acton the aforesaid -notification which was issued under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949, which was applicable to the State of Haryana at that time It was held in Shanti Narain's case (supra), that the Act did not expressly lay down anything which had the effect of annulling the notification issued under the old Act. i.e., the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. On the other hard, their was a specific provision enacted in it in, the form of Section 24(2) which keeps alive the rights and the liabilities regarding the actions taken under the old law Thus, on a proper interpretation of the provisions of the various statutes it was held that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit when the same was instituted. In view of the above -mentioned two decisions no meaningful argument could be raided on behalf of the Appellant to challenge the decree of eviction parsed against him The suit was filed on February 14, 1973 and the building vas completed on August 15, 1968 or in any case in June, 1969. A period of five years from the date of its completion for which it was exempted from the provisions of the Act, was provided in the above -said notification. Thus, the suit filed by the Plaintiffs was within that period. Therefore, even if the decree was passed after the period of exemption, exemption from the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, was available to the Plaintiffs and the decree passed by the trial Court was executable. In this behalf, reference may be made to Firm Amar Nath v. Tek Chand, I.L.R. 1981 (2) P&H. 365.