SUNIT KUMAR Vs. LAXMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interesting questions arise in these matters. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 2(k) of the H.P.Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (here-inafter referred to as the Rent Act) sometimes declares the area of Kandaghat to be an urban area and sometimes this notification is withdrawn. When the area of Kandaghat was not within the purview of the Rent Act, civil suits were filed for eviction of the tenants. In the mean time, the area was brought within the ambit of the Rent Act. However, before the decrees could be passed or executed fresh notification was issued again bring the area within the purview of the Rent Act. Later this notification was also withdrawn. Now, the area of Kandaghat has again been declared to be an urban area and thus the Rent Act is again applicable. This has given rise to various disputed questions of law with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to pass a decree and also in respect of the executability of such decrees.

(2.) RSA No. 506 of 2004 was listed before the then Hon'ble Chief Justice on 30th November, 2004 on which date the order of admission was passed, relevant portion of which reads thus:

(3.) This is how RSA No. 506 of 2004 is before a Division Bench for final hearing.