M/S OM PARKASH Vs. WAZIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE shop in dispute is a newly constructed building which was completed in April, 1974. The owner of the shop let out the same to M/s Om Parkash and sons. After terminating the tenancy civil suit was filed on 21.9.1983, that is, within 10 years, for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenancy had been terminated and the landlord did not want to keep him any longer. It was pleaded that the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) did not apply as Section 1(3) of the Act provided that the Act would not be applicable to any building the construction of which was completed on or after the commencement of the Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion.

(2.) THE tenant contesting the suit pleaded that during the pendency of the suit 10 years elapsed and on behalf of the tenant additional ground was taken that since ten years have now elapsed, the Act became applicable and he could be evicted only on one of the grounds contained under the Act and not by a simple suit of the nature filed against him. The trial Court decided the point in favour of the tenant on the basis of Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Singh Wadhera, A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 817. Otherwise all findings of fact were given in favour of the landlord. On landlord's appeal, the learned Additional District Judge decided the point in favour of the landlord in view of the later decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Marwah v. Smt. Samundri Devi, 1987(2) RCR 412(SC), AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2284, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sat Narain v. Tek Chand, 1988 H.R.R. 283. The later decision of the Supreme Court laid down that the rights of the parties have to be seen on the date of the suit and the expiry of ten years during the pendency of the suit would not affect the rights of the landlord. It also took notice of the fact that an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Om Parkash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1230, rendered by three Judges, was not brought to the notice of two Judges who decided Vineet Kumar's case (supra) and Nand Kishore's case (supra) was followed by them. Nand Kishore's (supra) was under the U.P. Rent Control Act and now we have still later decision of the Supreme Court under the Act in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, 1988(2) RCR 423 (SC) : AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2031. In Sat Narain's case (supra), and Atma Ram Mittal's case (supra) while considering the Haryana Act, it has been concluded that the suit should be filed within ten years of the completion of the building and it would not matter if ten years period expires during the pendency of the suit and the landlord would be entitled to continue the proceedings in the suit for the eviction of the tenant. Hence, the suit was competent and decree for eviction could be passed as the suit was filed within ten years of the completion of the building.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.