PYARE LAL Vs. OM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question sought to be raised in this second appeal is whether the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession of the property in dispute in view of the provisions of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act.

(2.) Argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the premises in dispute are situate at Sarahan, which was an urban area (under Notified Area Committee) prior to the year 1994 and thereafter under Nagar Panchayat till February 20, 1995. It was only by the notification dated 21st February, 1995 that the Nagar Panchayat was abolished and Sarahan area was transferred to Gram Panchaya Sarahan and, therefore, in view of the provision of Section 310 of the H.P. Municipal Act, this area would be deemed to be an urban area for the purpose of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act as obligation and liabilities acquired prior to coming into force of the Act are protected under this provision.

(3.) A bare reading of clause (b) of Section 310 of the Act shows that it is the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued under the repealed Act which have been saved. It is not fathomable how this provision helps the Appellant. No right or obligation or liability which might have been acquired or accrued or incurred under the repealed Act, i.e. Municipal Act, 1968 is in question in this suit.