YOGESH KUMAR Vs. AMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed a suit for ejectment of the respondent from the shop in dispute and for the recovery of Rs. 2240/- as arrears of rent alleging that it was let out to the respondent on September 26, 1977 for 11 months at a monthly rent of Rs. 160/- and that the tenancy was terminated with effect from 31st March, 1984 through a registered notice. 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 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 me and I admitted it to be heard with R.S.A. No. 1841 of 1987 which was admitted to D.B. because of the conflict in two Single bench decisions of this Court in Kanhiya Lal Aggarwal v. Om Parkash Rajput, 1986(1) Rent Control Reporter 280 : 1985 Haryana Rent Reporter 670 and Ishwar Singh Punia v. Atma Ram Mittal, 1986(1) R.C.R. 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 decisions of the Supreme Court in Firm Amar Nath Basheshar Dass. v. Tek Chand, 1972 R.C.R. 380(S.C.) A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court 1548 and Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 817, 1984(1) R.C.R. 302 was set at rest by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Marwah and others v. Smt. Samundri Devi, 1987(2) R.C.R. 412 (S.C.), 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 Punja's case (supra) is overruled.