KANHIYA LAL AGGARWAL Vs. OM PARKASH RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOUSE No. 742, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, was purchased by the plaintiffs on 9th June, 1975. At that time it was a single-storeyed building. They completed its first and second floor in July, 1978. The first floor was let out to the defendant-appellant (tenant) on 1st August, 1978. Since the premises in dispute were exempted from the purview of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (as applicable to the Union Territory Chandigarh), the landlord served a notice dated 8th September, 1982, under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy. He filed the present suit on 2nd December, 1982, seeking ejectment of the defendant tenant from the Ist floor of the said house and also for the recovery of Rs. 2,500/- towards arrears of rent with effect from Ist March, 1982 and damages. It was pleaded by virtue of the notification of exemption issued under section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which is applicable to Chandigarh the same was exempt from the purview of the Rent Act and, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to eject the tenant after termination of the tenancy by valid notice. The civil suit was not maintainable as the premises were covered by the provisions of the Rent Act.

(2.) THERE was not much controversy on the other issues. The main issue contested before the trial Court was as to whether the demised premises were exempt for a period of five years or not. The learned trial Court found that the demised premises were exempt under the notification dated 11th June, 1982, read with notification dated 31st January, 1973 and 24th September, 1973, issued under section 3 of the Act and, therefore, the Civil Court was competent to pass a decree of ejectment. Consequently, the plaintiffs's suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment was passed on 21st November, 1983. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and, thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the same the defendant-tenant has filed this Second Appeal in this Court.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was made applicable with effect from 4th November, 1972, to the Union Territory Chandigarh vide Act 54 of 1974, i. e. the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Act, the Chief Commissioner published a notification dated 31st January, 1973, exempting the buildings referred to therein from the operation of the Act, which reads as under :-