BHAGAT RAM Vs. LILAWATI GALIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in ESA 1/72, dismissing the appeal of Bhagat Ram against the order of the District Judge affirming on appeal the order of the Senior Sub Judge. Mahasu, dismissing the objections of Bhagat Ram judgment-debtor-appellant filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Smt. Lilawati Galib is the owner of the premises known as "Om Bhawan". below Lakkar Bazar Simla. Bhagat Ram got the lease of the premises as a tenant on 29th December. 1966. The period under the lease was for one year, due to expire on 6th December 1967. On 15th May. 1967, the landlady gave a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining the tenancy. The tenant having failed to vacate the premises, she instituted a suit for his eviction on 29th December. 1967. Since the building was completed on 27th December 1966, therefore under the notification, dated 18th August, 1966, issued by the Punjab Government with reference to Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), the building was exempt from the provisions of the Act for a period of five years from the date of its completion. This period was to expire on 26th December 1971. Hence a regular suit was brought by her on 29th December. 1967, which was decreed by the trial Judge on 25th September, 1970. According to the defendant the building could not be exempt under the aforesaid notification. Against this decree of electment. the appeal of Bhagat Ram to the District Judge was also dismissed on 11th November, 1970. Then a second appeal was filed in this Court which came UP for hearing before me on 4th June, 1971. The parties entered into a compromise. In that it was admitted by the tenant that the building was completed on 27th December. 1966. He agreed to vacate the the premises on or before 5th December, 1971. unconditionaly failing which he was made liable to pay Rs. 10/- per day. That appeal, therefore was dismissed in view of that compromise and by that judgment and order, the present appellant was allowed six months' period to vacate the premises without any condition and which period expired on 5th December 1971. The Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Himachal Pradesh Act) had by then come into force. On 6th December, 1971. the landlady. who had obtained the decree brought out execution proceedings before the Senior Sub Judge for ejectment of the present appellant in pursuance of the order of the High Court The judgment debtor filed objection petition under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. and pleaded that Section 14 (1) of the H. P. Act barred the execution of the decree as conditions laid down in that section were not satisfied. It was further objected that the Act also barred the execution of the decree. It was also averred that the notification did not hold good for the H. P. Act, as the decree-holder stood deprived of its advantage on 5th November. 1971. It was also pleaded that a fresh" tenancy was created on 4th June, 1971. as a result of the compromise. At any rate, the order of the learned Single Judge was not executable and the decree-holder was merely entitled to a money claim to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 10/-per day till the period the tenant chose to vacate the premises.

(3.) The executing Court dismissed the objections and so did the District Judge on appeal and on second appeal the learned Single Judge by his judgment. dated 24th April. 1972 dismissed the appeal with costs. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.