KISHAN DEV RISHI Vs. CHHAJU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen out of the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 1800/-. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of Rs. 1550/- but dismissed the suit for ejectment. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was allowed and decree for ejectment was also passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has filed this second appeal in this Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit alleging that the shop in dispute was rented out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. This same was constructed in the year 1963 and the defendant was inducted as the first tenant of the plaintiff in the shop immediately after its completion in the year 1964. It was further pleaded that Haryana Act No. 11 of 1973, was not applicable to the demised premises and hence, the present suit for ejectment as well as for the recovery of rent, after terminating the tenancy of the defendant. The suit was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the shop in dispute was constructed prior to 31.3.1962 and, therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court found that the shop in dispute was constructed after 31.3.1962 and therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Consequently, the plaintiffs suit for ejectment was dismissed but the suit for the recovery of rent to the tune of Rs. 1550/- was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the shop in dispute was constructed subsequent to 31.3.1962, and that being, so, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Consequently, a decree for ejectment was also passed. During the pendency of this appeal Haryana Act No. 16 of 1978 came into force on 8.5.1978. By virtue of Section 2 of this amending Act, sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, was substituted and it was provided that 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. In view of the said amendment, it could not be disputed that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for ejectment of the tenant-defendant. In any case, even if a decree could be passed, the same would not be executable as held by the Full Bench of this Court in Sawan Ram v. Gobinda Ram and another, 1980(1) R.C.R. 21.