ISHWAR SINGH PUNIA Vs. ATMA RAM MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent landlord filed a suit on June 15, 1982 for the ejectment of the petitioner tenant from the shop situated in Raj Guru Market Hissar which had been rented out to the latter in the year 1978. The case pleaded was that since the tenant was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 2400/- for the period December 1, 1981 to May 31, 1982 and his tenancy had been terminated with the service of a legal notice on him, the landlord was entitled to seek his eviction. The suit obviously was filed in the light of section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereafter referred to as the Act) which exempted any building constructed on or after the commencement of the Act from the operation of the Act for a period of ten years. To be precise, the language of this sub-section is "nothing in this Act shall apply to any building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion". Since by 9th November, 1984, the landlord failed to secure a decree in his favour and the period of time exempting the building from the provisions of the Act, i.e, ten years from the date of completion had expired, the petitioner tenant moved an application before the trial Court claiming that with the above noted efflux of time no proceedings against him could be continued in the Civil Court and the landlord has essentially to seek his remedy under the Act. This prayer of the petitioner was turned down by the lower Court with the observation that what the language of the statute and more particularly section 1(3) of the Act requires is that the suit should have been filed within ten years from the date of completion of the building and the decree of ejectment need not be passed within that period of exemption. The petitioner impugns this order.

(2.) THE sole submission of Mr. J.S. Wasu, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is that the interpretation placed by the lower Court on Section 1(3) of the Act is palpably wrong in the face of the latest pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar v. Mangat Sain Wadhava, 1984(1) RCR 302; AIR 1985 SC 817. Though that case, was under a different statute i.e. U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act (13 of 1972), yet the relevant provision of that statute, i.e. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 is almost similar to the language of Section 1(3) of the Act. The relevant part of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the former Act reads as follows:

(3.) FACED with his situation, Mr. Mittal learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, vehemently urges that an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in firm Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand, 1972 RCR 380; AIR 1972 SC 1548 supports the interpretation placed by the lower Court on Section 1(3) of the Act and in view of that the order deserves to be sustained. Having perused the said judgment I do not, however, feel impressed with the submission of the learned counsel. What was considered by their Lordships in that judgment was the notification issued by the State Government under section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949) which reads as follows: