KRISHAN LAL Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has been referred by a learned single Judge of this Court for its decision by a Full Bench reads :

(2.) The distinction between the two parts is self evident. Whereas the first affords a right of eviction to the landlord under the J. and K. Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the second does not. As the reference is based on the phraseology of Cl. (c) and the proviso to Cl. (h) of S.11(1) of the Act, it would be necessary first to notice the provisions of S.11(1)(c) of the Act : Section 11 reads thus :

(3.) The Section opens with a non obstante clause implying thereby that no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any house or shop to which the Act applies shall of made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on the grounds contained in the Act. Clause (c) is but one such ground for eviction of a tenant who has sublet the whole, or major portion of the house or shop for more than seven consecutive months. This clause was, however, amended vide Aft No. XVI of 1978 and the absolute right of eviction on the ground of subletting of the whole or a major portion of the building for a period beyond seven consecutive months was made subject to the following proviso :