HARJIT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS Vs. PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORTS CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-landlord is aggrieved of the impugned order of the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby the arbitral Award dated 22.02.1999 directing the respondent-Punjab Small Industries and Exports Corporation Limited (hereinafter called as "PSIEC") to hand over possession of the premises in dispute, has been set aside.

(2.) Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate submits that vide agreement of lease dated 17.06.1976, PSIEC took on lease land comprising in Khasra Nos.155, 158, 154, 145, 144, 146, 147, 149 and 148 situated at village Achnali on a monthly rent of Rs. 5000/- initially for a period of five years. The lease was to be extended in the year 1981 and the respondent-PSIEC was to give three months notice to the petitioner to extend the lease but the respondent did not serve any notice. Several requests were made to vacate the premises. Even a legal notice dated 09.07.1998 whereby the respondent was called upon to hand over the physical possession yielded no result. Clause 13 of the said agreement envisaged the resolution of dispute to be referred to the Chairman of the respondent-PSIEC, hence the matter was referred. Before the Arbitrator, the respondent filed the reply in the following terms:-

(3.) In fact, as per the provisions of Section 2 (f) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the agreement envisaged leasing out of rented land. Section 2 (f) of the aforementioned Act prescribes the definition of rented land including the purpose of being used principally for business or trade. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court reported in Hukam Chand Vs. Om Chand, 1997 2 RCR(Rent) 393 and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hukam Chand Vs. Om Chand and others, 2001 10 SCC 715, in essence, he contended that mere fact that there was a mention that structures that may be erected would be removed or the lessee was given a right or entitled him to use the land himself or raise construction thereon, would not fall within the term "rented land" and therefore, the objection of the PSIEC raised for the first time and accepted by the Objecting Court regarding the applicability of the erstwhile Act was wholly erroneous and perverse. He has drawn attention of this Court to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the aforementioned Division Bench judgment of this Court and paragraph 7 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.