SURAJ MAL Vs. KAMLA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the order of Senior Sub Judge, Lauhal and Spiti, in Execution No. 3-X/89 decided on 3.7.89 thereby upholding the objection preferred by the tenant and consequently rejecting the execution application of the landlord.

(2.) THE landlord preferred a suit for the ejectment of the tenant before the civil court and as a result of the ejectment order the tenant came before the Appellate Court where the parties compromised the matter whereby the tenant was to vacate the premises on or before 31.5.1989 failing which the landlord could take possession of the premises in accordance with law by way of execution of the decree in question. The tenant had agreed to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 28/- per month from 1.4.1986 to 30.6.1988 amounting to Rs. 756/- before 31.7.88. It was to be deposited by the tenant before 31.7.88 in the trial Court. The tenant also agreed that in case she failed to vacate the premises on or before 31.3.1989, she would be liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month to the landlord for the period during which she continues in possession of the premises in question after 31.3.1989 till she is evicted in due course of law. However, in case of default aforesaid, the previous rent upto 31.3.1989 was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 28/- per month. Accordingly, the matter was compromised in the terms aforesaid and the trial court decree was modified accordingly.

(3.) THE sole question for determination is whether the impugned order is legally permissible as held by the Senior Sub-Judge. Shri Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the execution application is maintainable in view of the fact that the ejectment of the tenant was sought by way of a suit before the civil court and the decree was sought to be executed before the same court since till this time the Rent Control Act had not come into force in the notified area declared by the State Government. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on certain decision. The first case is 1972 ILR HP 85 : 1972 RCR 851 (Bhagat Ram v. Smt. Lilawati Galib,). Although the learned counsel submitted that the facts of this case are similar to the present case, however, in my opinion, this is not so far the reason that this case moved on the ground that application of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 had been exempted by a notification dated August 18, 1986 to the building in question for a period of five years from the date of its completion. This period of five years was to expire on December 26, 1971 and the Rent Control Act came into force before the expiry of this period of five years and it was held that the Punjab Notification dated August 18, 1966 continued to have its application although the Rent Control Act was made applicable. Due to the exemption of the building from the Rent Control Act and initiation of execution proceedings before the expiry of the tenure of exemption it was held that the consent decree was not rendered executable. Therefore, in view of the fact that the decree sought from the civil court at a time when neither the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act nor the Rent Control Act was applicable, the initiation of execution proceedings after the coming into force of the Rent Control Act should not make any difference due to the application of the exemption notification already issued under the Punjab Act. Although the view of the Court was that the definition of 'tenant' in the Rent Control Act is quite broad, however, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not applicable to a tenant against whom a decree is obtained in a civil court on the basis of a compromise and execution proceedings initiated during the exemption, period. With respect, the court did not examine the definition of 'tenant' with the provisions of Section 14 of the Rent Control Act which is necessary for the correct under standing of the matter as is apparent from Mani Subrat Jain's case (Supra).