MOHINDER LAL Vs. SAROJ KUMARI VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal arising out of suit decreed against him directing his ejectment from Shop-cum-office (SCO) No. 84, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh and for the recovery of Rs. 4,500.00 on account of arrears of rent/damages. Plaintiff-respondent is the mortgagee in possession of the SCO, the second floor of which was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/ -. The tenancy was terminated and a suit for ejectment of the defendant. was filed in the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Chandigarh alleging that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Chandigarh (for short the Act) was not applicable to the building in question. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act, the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh issued a notification dated January 31, 1973 directing that the provisions of the urban area of Chandigarh for a period of five years with effect from the date the sewerage connection is granted in respect of such buildings by the competent authority under Rule 112 of the Punjab Capital (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952. This notification was modified by another notification dated September 24, 1973 in which it was directed that the period of five years exemption shall be computed as under :

(2.) FROM the evidence led by the parties both the Courts have concurrently found that the electric connection to the building in question was given on 3. 1. 1973 and that the sewerage connection was, granted to the building on 24. 2. 1973. There is no dispute that the suit for the ejectment of the defendant-appellant was filed on 13. 1. 1978.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the notification dated September 24, 1973, the relevant part of which has been reproduced herinabove, makes it clear that in the case of a building which has been granted sewerage connection, the period of five years is to be counted from the date on which such connection was granted. It is only in case of those buildings where sewerage connection can not be granted, as for instance in the case of booths having no provision for a bathroom or a latrine that the period of exemption is to be counted from the date when electric connection is first given by the competent authority. Admittedly, in the case before us sewerage connection has been granted to SCO 84, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, the ground floor of which was in the occupation of the appellant as a tenant. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the ground floor of the premises which was let out to him does not have a latrine or a bathroom and, therefore, qua the tenanted premises there is no sewerage connection and the period of exemption will have to be calculated from the date when the electric connection was first given. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. May be, that the ground floor of the SCO has no latrine or bathroom, as contended by the appellant, but it cannot be disputed that the building as such was granted the sewerage connection by the competent authority on 24. 2. 1973. The building including the tenanted premises are not such where sewerage connection could not be granted. Clause (a) of the notification will, therefore, govern the case in hand. When the notification granted exemption refers to the grant of a sewerage connection it means such a connection to the Building as a whole and cannot be restricted to the tenanted premises only. As in the case before us a building may have a sewerage connection, but only a part thereof without a bathroom or latrine may be let out to a tenant. In such a situation it cannot be said that the tenanted premises do not have a sewerage connection so as to exempt the building from the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that the period of exemption is to be counted from 24. 2. 1973 on which date the sewerage connection to the building was granted. If we so calculate, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is within five years from this date. The provisions of the Act would not, therefore, be attracted in view of the exemption granted by the notification. This is precisely what the lower appellate court has held. No fault can, thus, be found with the reasoning of the Court below.