Nand Lal vs Roshan Lal and Others

B.S. Yadav, J.—This is a Defendant''s appeal arising out of a suit filed by the present Respondents for his ejectment from a shop situated in Panipat. Originally Respondents No. 1 and 2 were its owners. They gifted it to their mother on whose death the Respondents inherited the shop in dispute They alleged in the plaint that the shop in dispute was re-constructed in January, 1969 and thereafter it was let out to the Defendant on 1.2.1969 on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- for a period of 11 months. The Defendant also executed a rent note on 21.2.1969 in favour of the then owners of the shop. When the Defendant did not vacate the shop after the expiry of the period of tenancy the present suit for his ejectment was filed in August, 1972.

The Defendant contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that only repairs were effected in the shop, otherwise this was an old building. He was a tenant in the shop in dispute since 1952. He also pleaded that no notice of ejectment was given to him. Some other pleas were also raited by the Defendant but those are not relevant for the purpose of this judgment.

Thy learned trial Court held that the shop was constructed in January, 1969. About notice it was held that new tenancy had come into effect with effect from 1,2.1969. Consequently the Plaintiffs'' suit was decreed.

The Defendant filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers) Karnal. He confirmed the finding of the learned trial Court that the shop had been reconstructed in January, 1969 and, therefore, it was exempt from the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Consequently he dismissed the appeal.

Both the learned Courts below have held that the shop in dispute was reconstructed in January, 1969. It is a finding of fact and cannot be challenged in second appeal. It was not disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that every building which was constructed during the year 1968, 1969 and 1970 had been exempted from the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act), which Act was then in force in Haryana, for a period of 5 years from its completion by notification dated 22.10.1971 issued by the Governor of Haryana and that notification remained in force after the enactment of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, either u/s 22 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898 or u/s 24(2) of the said Haryana Act In this respect reference can also be made to Suresh Kumar v. Jagjit Singh 1981 (2) R.C.J. 359.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Defendant was a tenant in the building which was standing earlier on the site in dispute and he had vacated it somewhere in October, 1968 as it was to be reconstructed and at that time agreement Exhibit P. 4 was executed between the Defendant and the then owners to the effect that after re-construction the shop would be re-let to the former and he would be considered the tenant of the shop as before The Learned Counsel for the Appellant, therefore, argued that as the Defendant was on old tenant in the shop in dispute, therefore, the price of tenancy fixed in the rent note Exhibit P. 5 would not affect this tenancy and in view of the definition given in the Act, he would be considered as a tenant on the same conditions as before and he would not be deemed to be a statutory tenant after the expiry of the period of new tenancy. I am of the opinion that the above argument has no force for the reasons given below.

Firstly, when the shop was reconstructed in January, 1969 it became exempt from the provisions of the Act by virtue of the notification referred to above. Therefore, the Defendant can not take any benefit of the definition of the tenant as given under the Act.

Secondly, the Defendant can not be considered as an old tenant in the shop. Admittedly, he was not in occupation of the premises during the period of reconstruction. The earlier tenancy of the Defendant came to an and when he vacated the shop. Under the agreement he was entitled to occupy the shop on an enhanced rate of rent after it had been reconstructed and was to be considered as a tenant before. However, in spite of that agreement, the Defendant agreed to take the newly constructed shop on rent for 11 months with effect from 1st February, 1969. Thus the old agreement Exhibit P. 4 would not help the Defendant in any way because there has been novation of contract. The old agreement ceased to have any effect when the Defendant entered into a new agreement of tenancy and also executed a fresh rent note. Thus after the efflux of the period of tenancy he became a statutory tenant in the premises in dispute.

No other point was raised. For the reasons given above,, I do not find any force in the present appeal and dismiss the time. However, in the circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their own costs.