MATHRA DASS Vs. PUNJAB PROVINCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has arisen out of the suit brought by one Mathra Das, a resident of Batala, against the Punjab Province through the Collector of Gurdaspur for a declaration to the effect that he was in possession as a tenant of ahatas Nos. 27 and 28 situate in the Bairuni Mandi (the outer market) of Batala and for issue of a perpetual injunction to the defendant restraining it from ejecting the plaintiff from those ahatas.

(2.) It is common ground between the parties that two plots of building sites situate in the Bairuni Mandi (outer market) of Batala recorded as ahatas Nos. 27 and 28 and owned by the. Government had been on lease with Mathra Das plaintiff for some years. It is again common ground that the contracts of lease under which the plaintiff had been holding the sites had been contracts of yearly lease, the lease having been renewed at the end of each year. It is further admitted by the parties that the period of the last lease expired on 31 March 1915 when the Provincial Government let out the premises to someone else who had given the highest bid for the rent at an auction held under its orders. The plaintiff brought his suit on 24 May 1945, alleging that he being ready and willing to continue as a tenant of the suit premises under the defendant on the old terms and having never made default in payment of the rent as it accrued due, the defendant was not entitled to eject him accept in compliance with the provisions of the Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The suit was resisted by the defendant, inter alia, on the pleas that the aforesaid Act did not, by reason of the provisions of the Grown Grants Act, govern the lease granted by it to the plaintiff and that, in any event, assuming that the Act did otherwise apply, the lease being for a fixed period the tenancy determined at the end of such period and the plaintiff became liable to ejectment without complying with its provisions in the matter of notice. On these pleas, the learned trial Judge framed the following preliminary issues: (1) Does not the Punjab Urban Bent Eestriction Act apply to the present case? (2) Was a notice for ejectment necessary in this ease? If not, what is its effect?

(3.) The learned trial Judge held on the first issue that the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1941 did not apply to the present case. On the second issue, relying on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Lahore in Hari Singh V/s. Narain Das A.I.R. 1945 Lah. 175, he held that if the Act had been held to be applicable to the lease in question, the plaintiff could not have been ejected except in compliance with the provisions of Section 10 of that Act in the matter of notice in spite of the lease being for a fixed period As a result of his finding on the first issue, however, the learned Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On the matter coming up before him in appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Senior Sub-Judge of Gurdaspur affirmed the decision of the learned trial Judge on Issue 1, and, without expressing any opinion about issue 2 dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved from the decree of the learned Senior Sub-Judge came up in appeal to this Court. His appeal was in the first instance heard by my learned brother sitting singly. In view of a conflict of opinion on the question of the appeal usability or otherwise of Section 3. Crown Grants Act, to the present ease his Lordship was pleased to refer the case to a Division Bench. The appeal was accordingly laid before us and we have heard learned and elaborate arguments from both sides on the question covered by the first preliminary issue.