BASAKHA SINGH Vs. MANI RAM BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal challenging the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below holding that defendant- tenant is liable to be ejected from the demised premises as the respondent- landlord has proved termination of tenancy by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The plea taken by the appellant before the 1st Appellate Court that no decree of ejectment against him could be passed as the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Rent Act') has been invoked before expiry of 10 years' period of exemption granted vide notification dated 9.2.1984 issued by the Punjab Government has been rejected.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff Mani Ram filed a civil suit seeking ejectment of the appellant-defendant from demised premises i.e. House No. HL-206, Phase-II, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Defendant was inducted as tenant by the plaintiff through Mohinder Singh, husband of his wife's sister, on a monthly rent of Rs. 320/-. The appellant-tenant did not bother to make the payment of rent regularly. He also did not prove to be a good tenant and, therefore, the plaintiff asked him to vacate the house and also to make the payment of rent due towards him. Accordingly, statutory notice was served upon the defendant terminating his tenancy, as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The suit was contested by the defendant, mainly, on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He further challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit asserting that plaintiff is not the owner of the demised premises. According to him, the property belongs to the Punjab Housing Board. He also denied the service of notice issued by the plaintiff. Service of notice sent by Mohinder Singh through his counsel Shivdev Singh was, however, admitted by the defendant. The defendant further pleaded that he had been paying rent to Mohinder Singh. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, I am of the view there is no merit in this appeal. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been proved between the parties. It has further been found that the suit was filed during the period of exemption and, therefore, the provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable. The issue with regard to payment of rent does not survive. The main argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the period of 10 years has expired during the pendency of appeal and the provisions of the Rent Act have become applicable. In support, the learned counsel referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of K. Balakrishna Rao and others v. Haji Abdulla Sait and others, 1980(1) Rent Control Reporter 374 and Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, 1990(1) RCR(Rent) 423 : (1990-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 182.