(1.) This second appeal is brought from the decision of the learned District Judge, Solan, who partly affirmed on appeal the decision of the Senior Sub -Judge in a suit for ejectment filed by Rattan Lal and decreed in his favour.
(2.) The dispute relates to shop No. 39, situate in the ground floor of the building located in the Market Bazar, Kasauli. It is admitted case that Sec. 13(1) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act No. 3 of 1949) was not applicable to Kasauli Cantonment before 5 -2 -1970. Is is on that date that by a notification of the Central Government the said provision was extended to Kasauli Cantonment. On 9 -12 -1969 accordingly under the general law of ejectment of a tenant, Rattan Lal filed a suit against the Defendant Dewan Chand & Sons in respect of the aforesaid shop for their ejectment, and the plea was that they had not paid the rent and that the premises were needed by the landlord for his personal use. A notice to quit was also duly served upon the Defendant. The suit was formerly decided by the Subordinate Judge, Kandaghat, who ejected the Defendant. An appeal was brought to the Senior Sub -Judge, Simla, which was accepted and two more issues were framed as to the nature of tenancy, and the suit being premature, the case was remanded for de novo decision. The Senior Sub -Judge, Solan, thereafter again decided the suit against the Defendant and decreed the suit for ejectment with a condition that the decree will not be executable because Act No. 3 of 1949 had come into operation by then. Against that decision, both the parties filed appeal before the District Judge.
(3.) The appeal of the landlord Rattan Lal was to the effect that the condition attached to the decree and that the same is in executable, was not sustainable under law and must be quashed. The tenants Dewan Chand & Sons on the other hand filed their appeal, alleging that the very decree of ejectment could not be passed and must be set aside.