S HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals under Clause 10, Letters Patent raise a common question of law, namely whether acceptance by a landlord of rent in regard to a period subsequent to the expiration of the notice to quit constitutes a waiver of the said notice.

(2.) THE petitioner in this case is the owner of a certain house situate in Jullunder while the respondents are two legal practitioners of the same town who are in occupation of two separate portions of the said house. The landlord brought actions against his tenants for their eviction and obtained consent decrees against them according to which one of the tenants was to vacate the premises on 29-6-1949, and the Other on 20-11-1949. On 23-3-1949, that is while the tenants were still in occupation of the premises let out to them the Provincial Legislature enacted a measure known as the East Punjab bent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13 of which made the following somewhat unusual declaration namely:

(3.) THE enactment of this measure made it impossible for the landlord to execute the decrees against his tenants and on 22-9-1949 he was reluctantly compelled to issue fresh notices of ejectment to them in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1949. These notices failed to achieve the object which the landlord had in view and on 28-1-1950 in one case and 6-2-1950 in the other the landlord brought two separate actions for the eviction of his tenants. While the cases were pending in Court the Governor of the Punjab promulgated an Ordinance known as the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1950, Section 2 of which, added the following words to Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1949 namely: