SHRI JIWAN KUMAR Vs. PUSHPA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EJECTMENT of Jiwan Kumar was ordered by the Rent Controller, Karnal on April 25, 1987 from the residential house situated in Housing Board Colony, Karnal. An appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority which failed on September 1, 1987. Hence, this revision petition by the tenant.

(2.) THE ejectment of the petitioner was claimed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent for the period January 1, 1980 onwards and that Smt. Pushpa Kumari, the landlord, required the premises in dispute for her own us and occupation. The monthly rent of the premises was stated to be Rs. 150/-. The petitioner contested the petition inter alia alleging that h had paid the entire rent due and that the premises were not required by the landlord for her own use and occupation. Further plea was taken that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the house was constructed less than ten years prior to the filing of the petition and was thus exempt from the operation of the Rent Act. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties :-

(3.) IN appeal, it is not disputed that the premises in dispute were built on October 13, 1975 and that for a period of ten years they were exempt from the operation of the Rent Act in view of sub-section (1) section 3 of the said Act. The ejectment application was filed on February 23, 1984 and was finally decided on April 25, 1987. At the time when the ejectment application was filed, admittedly ten years had not expired. However, when the Rent Controller finally decided the same, ten years had expired. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the ejectment application was filed on February 23, 1984, the premises were exempt from the operation of the Rent Act and thus the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The mere fact that ten years expired during pendency of the ejecment application would no below jurisdiction on the Rent Controller. There is force in this contention. Before the Appellate Authority as well as before the Rent Controller, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 817., on the proposition that after expiry of the period of exemption, the tenant would be entitled to the protection of the Rent Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar's case (supra) does not hold the filed in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Marwah and others v. Smt. Samundri Devi, 1987(2) Rent Control Reporter 412. It was observed that in Vineet Kumar's case (supra), which was decided by two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Parkash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta etc., 1982(2) RCR 383 (SC), of three Hon'ble Judges was not considered. Furthermore, in Nand Kishore Marwah's case (supra), it was observed that the previous decision of the Supreme Court in Firms Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand, 1972 RCR 380 (SC), which related to East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, was also not considered in Vineet Kumar's case (supra). The Supreme Court held that the rights of the parties would be determined on the basis of the rights available to them on the date of the suit. The matter was considered by this Court in two cases, Kanhiya Lal Aggarwal v. Om Parkash Rajput, 1986(1) RCR 380 : 1985 Haryana Rent Reporter 670, and Usha Jain v. R.P. Rehal, 1987 Haryana Rent Reporter 216. J.V. Gupta, J. in deciding these two cases noticed the decision of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar's case (supra) and observed that the ration of the said decision has no applicability to the case like the one in hand, that is the case relating to Union Territory, Chandigarh.