PALOO RAM Vs. ISHWAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the respondents from the shop in dispute alleging that it was let out to the respondents on 28.7.1978 for 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs. 115/- and that the tenancy was terminated with effect from April 30, 1981 through a registered notice served on April 8, 1981. It 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 its completion.

(2.) THE respondents contested the suit and decide 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 D.V. Sehgal, J., who admitted it to D.B. because of the conflict in two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Kanhiya Lal Aggarwal v. Om Parkash Rajput, 198 Haryana Rent Reporter 670 and 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 the conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court in Firm Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand, A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court 1548 and Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, A.I.R. 1985, Supreme Court 817, was set at rest by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Marwah and others v. Smt. Samundri Devi, A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 2284 and the view expressed in Firm Amar 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.