The Punjab State vs K.L. Grover and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This appeal has been filed on behalf of the Defendant State of Punjab against the decree of the trial Court decreeing the Plaintiff''s suit for ejectment from 1st and 2nd Floor of Shop-cum-office No. 2465-66, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

The Defendant State of Punjab took on rent 1st and 2nd floors of shop-cum-office No. 2465-66, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3200/- excluding electricity and water charges from I 6 1980 to 315 1981 It was stated in the plaint that the Plaintiff received one letter from the Defendant dated 6/8.4. 1981 informing the Plaintiff that the premises would be vacated after the expiry of one month. It was further alleged that the Defendant has neither paid the rent with effect from 1.4.1981 nor vacated the premises. Notice dated 25.5.1981 terminating the tenancy was also served on the Defendant on 30 8.1981 and notice u/s 80 of the CPC and also served on the Defendant on 16.6.1981. It was further stated that the building in question is exempted u/s 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as applicable to Chandigarh. On these allegations, the Plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment of the Defendant from the premises in dispute.

The suit was contested on behalf of State of Punjab inter alia on the ground that the premises in question were hired for the purpose of providing accommodation to certain branches of the Civil Secretariat for official purpose as there was no accommodation in the main building of the secretariat and the same situation still persists and the building is required till such time a suitable building is constructed/hired for this purpose. It was further stated that in terms of para No. 4 of the lease deed, the owner was required to get the premises repaird, distempered, white washed etc. and that certain short comings were pointed out to the Plaintiffs but they did not care. The Plaintiffs did not carry out these repairs and then the Defendant was left with no option but to seek alternative accommodation and under these circumstances, the Plaintiff was served with one month''s notice. Later on, the members of the staff sitting in the disputed premises started agitating and then the Defendant at their own expense got these defects removed in the disputed premises and dropped the idea of shifting to some other building. Plea was also taken that the building was not exempt from the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 as applicable to Chandigarh.

From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1 Whether the building is not covered under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, if so, its effect, OPD?

Whether the tenancy of the Defendant has been terminated through a valid and legal notice dated 16.6.1981, OPP.

Whether the tenancy stands renewed by Clause 2 of the lease deed dated 29.5.1981? OPP

Relief.

On issue No. 1, the trial Court found that in view of notification dated 24.9.1973 issued by the Chief Commissioner Chandigarh Administration, the building in dispute is exempt from the provisions of the Act as applicable to Chandigarh for a period of five years from the date, the sewerage connection was granted i.e. 1.9.1976 whereas the suit was filed by the Plaintiff before the expiry of period of five years i. e 17.08.1981 and therefore the provision of Bast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act were not applicable. Issue No. 2 and 3 were discussed together. It was concluded that the tenancy of the Defendant has been terminated through a valid and legal notice dated 16.06.1981 and the tenancy did not stand renewed by Clause 2 of the lease deed dated 29.5.1980 as alleged in the written statement. In view of these finding the Plaintiff suit was decreed. (sic) Dissatisfied with the same of the Defendant State of Punjab has filed the appeal in this Court. In this appeal only the finding of the trial Court under issue No. has been challenged. It has been contended on the behalf of the State that the average connection was granted 17.8.1976 as admitted by the Plaintiff Shri Avinash grover who has appeared as PW l and therefore from that date the suit filed on 17.08.1981 could not be said to have been filed within five years of the exemption period.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties I am of the considered opinion that there is no force in this contention of course Shri. Avinash Grover PW l has stated that the sewerage connection was granted on 17.8 1976 but at the same time, he has made it clear that it was actually affixed on 9.1976. The matter does not come to end here The Plaintiff produced Bhagwant Singh, PW2, who is Sectional Officer Public Health Division No. 3, Chandigarh. He had brought the summoned record relating to sewerage connection of demised premises. He has categorically stated that the sewerage connection was granted to the premises in question on 1.9.1976 He has further made it clear that this connection was sanctioned on 17.08.1976. ''To the similar. affect is the statement of PW3 Kehav Chander, Clerk, Estate Office, Chandigarh who has stated that the connection was recommended on 17.08.1976. It is not disputed that after the, sewerage connection is recommended or sanction by the department concerned, its execution is done by the officials of the department themselves posterior to the date of recommendation. Thus in these circumstances it is quite evident that the actual sewaf-age connection was fitted. on the day when it was actually implemented at the spot which admittedly in the present case was done on 1.9.1976 Moreover, the statement of PW2 Bhagwant Singh, Sectional Officer, is very significant when he categorically stated that the sewerage, connection was granted to the premises in question on 19.09.1976, though it was sanctioned on 17.8.1976 In view of this evidence the trial Court rightly come to the conclusion that the sewerage, connection, was granted on 1.9.1976. and the suit filed on 17.8.198l was within the exempted period of five years under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction, Act.

An argument also raised on behalf of the Appellant that after coming into force of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, no decree of the civil Court could be executed against a tenant. According to the Learned Counsel admittedly the Appellant is the tenant In support of this connection reference was made to Mani Subrat Jain Vs. Raja Ram Vohra, That has no bearing ''on the case On the other hand the matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Firm Amar Nath Basheshar Dass Vs. Tek Chand, wherein it has been held that

...where the building was completed in March I960 and the suit Was filed on 14-1-1963 that is, before the expiry of 5 years from the date of the completion of building but the decree was passed on 14-8-1969 i. e. after the period of exemption, exemption from Section 13 was available to the landlord decree holder and the decree was executable.

Thus I do not find any force in this connection. In the present case the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, had already come into force when the present suit Was filed. The said Act itself provides exemption to certain buildings. It was on that account that the Plaintiff filed the present suit- in a- civil Court, specifically alleging that the building was exempt from the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Therefore, the judgment relied upon has absolutely no applicability to the facts of the present case.

No other point arises nor has been argued; consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.