RAM DITTA Vs. DEVI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a suit giving rise to this second appeal for ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the shop, in dispute, alleging that the demised shop was constructed in the year 1970 and as such, was exempt from the applicability of the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a period of 10 years and that the tenancy in favour of the respondent had since been terminated but had failed to deliver back the possession to the plaintiff The other matters raised in is a suit and decided are not noticed, being irrelevant for the purpose of this appeal. The tenant pleaded that the demised shop had been constructed before the year 1973 and, as such, was not exempt from the applicability of the provisions of the Act. The trial Court held that the demised shop was constructed in the year 1976 and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff-appellant for the possession of the shop, in dispute, and against the defendant-respondent. The lower appellate Court also, held that the demised shop was constructed in the year 1976 but dismissed the suit with regard to ejectment, because the period of exemption of 10 years expired during the pendency of the suit Reliance for this proposition was placed on a decision of this Court in Ishwar Singh Punia V/s. Atma Ram Mittal, 1986 1 RCR(Rent) 229which is based on a decision of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar V/s. Mangal Sain Wadhera, 1985 AIR(SC) 817 Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff-landlord has come up in this second appeal

(2.) The rule laid down in Vineet Kumar's case has since been disapproved by the Supreme Court in its later decision in Nand Kishore Marwah and others V/s. Samundri Devi, 1987 AIR(SC) 2284. As the exemption of 10 years under the Act had not expired when the suit was filed, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable in the present case. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below that the shop, in dispute was constructed in the year 1976, this appeal is allowed the impugned judgment reversed and a decree of ejectment passed in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. No costs

(3.) I agree.