SHIV KUMAR Vs. SURINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed a suit for ejectment of the respondent from the shop in dispute and for the recovery of Rs. 1500/- as arrears of rent alleging that it was let out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and that the tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 17.3.1980. I was further alleged that the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act were not applicable as the demised premises were exempt from its applicability for a period of ten years from the date of is completion.

(2.) THE respondent contested the suit and denied all the material allegations made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(3.) AT the motion hearing, the appeal came up before K.S. Bhalla, J. who admitted it and ordered to be heard with R.S.A. No. 3162 of 1986 which was admitted to DB because of the conflict on two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Kanhiya Lal Aggarwal v. Om Parkash Rajput 1986(1) RCR 280 : 1985 Haryana Rent Reporter 670and Ishwar Singh Punia v. Atma Ram Mittal, 1986(1) RCR 229. By the time the appeal came up for hearing before us the conflict in the said two decisions, which was the result of two conflicting decision of the Supreme court in Firm Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand, 1972 RCR 380; AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1548 and Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, 1984(1) RCR 302; AIR 1985 Supreme Court 817 was set at rest. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Marwaha and others v. Smt. Samundri Devi, 1987(2) RCR 412 : AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2284 and the view expressed in Firm Amat Nath's case (supra) that if the suit was filed prior to the expiry of the exemption period of ten years, the Rent Restriction Act would not be applicable, was affirmed. Accordingly, the decision in Kanhiya Lal Aggarwal's case (supra) is affirmed and the other one in Ishwar Singh Punia's case (supra) is overruled.