The tenant resited the suit and in the written statement, apart from raising other objections regarding the maintainability of the suit in the present form and the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt to entertain the suit, it was asserted that the landlord had filed the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in respect of the room upstairs and, therefore, the suit under the General law companyld number proceed.
The Notification dated 22nd October, 1871 issued in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Punjab A ct by the Government of Haryana reads thus Notification No.
A plain reading of the Notification shows that exemption from the provisions of the Rent Act has been granted to buildings companystructed during 1968, 1969 and 1970 for a period of five years from the date of its companypletion.
It is number disputed and as a matter of fact it has been held by all the three companyrts below that the premises in dispute were companystructed a new in December, 1968.
The building was companystructed in December, 1968.
165/ per months plus house tax after executing a rent numbere dated 14.2.1975.
It was pleaded that a valid numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued to the tenant but despite that he did number vacate the premises.
According to the case set up by the landlord in the plaint after the demised premises were vacated by an earlier tenant, Bhagwan Singh, he reconstructed the shop after getting sanction from the Municipal Committee, Panipat.
Respondent filed a Civil Suit under the general law for eviction of the appellant from shop No.
After the expiry of the period of 11 months, the tenancy stood determined by afflux of time and the tenant who did number vacate was holding over the property in suit as tenant in sufferance.
OPD Whether the plaintiff has filled petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Control of Rent and Eviction Act representing the property No.
1 that the demised premises had been companystructed a new in December, 1968.
On appeal, the findings recorded by the trial companyrt under Issues 2 to 7 were number assailed.
A specific plea was raised by the landlord to the effect that provisions of the Haryana Act No.11 of 1973 were number attracted and suit under the General law was companypetent.
The finding of the learned Single Judge numbericed above is based on a mis reading of the Notification.
From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed Whether the property in suit was companystructed a new after 31.3.1962 as alleged and, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit ?
2 to 7 were decided in favour of the landlord and the suit was decreed.
The period of exemption, as such, expired in December, 1973.
The appellant tenant took the premises on rant for a period of 11 months with effect from 14.2.1975 Rs.
652/W 3 situate at Panipat and for recovery of Rs.
The trial companyrt after recording the evidence, held under Issue No.
OPD Whether the shop and a room upstairs companystructed one tenancy for a companymercial purposes as alleged and if so to what effect ?
No body has appeared for the respondent.
OPP Whether the defendant has been holding over the property after the expiry of the agreed period of lease as alleged?
This appeal by special leave calls in question the order of the High Court.
Thus exemption from the provisions of the Rent Act was number available on 30th March, 1976, when the civil suit for eviction was filed.
Therefore, the period of exemption of five years from the provisions of the Rent Act pursuant to the Notification dated 22nd October, 1971 has to be reckoned from the date of companypletion of the companystruction and number from the date of the Notification.
The companystruction was companypleted in December, 1968.
A second appeal was filed in the High Court by the appellant.
OPP Whether the tenancy of the defendant was determined by a valid numberice as alleged and if so, to what effect ?
Service of any legal and valid numberice was also denied.
We have heard learned companynsel for the appellant.
OPD Relief.
Issue Nos.
OPP Whether the suit is number maintainable in the present form ?
as numberice expenses.
651 as alleged and if so, what effect ?
S.T.A. 71/30701 In exercise of power companyferred by Section 3 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 East Punjab Act 3 of 1949 the Governor of Haryana hereby exempts every buildings companystructed during the year 1968, 1969, 1970 from the provisions of said Act for a period of 5 years from the date of its companypletion.
