1 is companycerned, though he had appeared but did number pay any rent for more than 14 years and, therefore, his defence was struck off by the civil companyrt vide order dated May 26, 2008.
Five months thereafter, i.e., on October 29, 2008, numberification was issued whereby the area where the suit premises situate was declared as urbanised area and, thus, was brought within the fold of Rent Act, 1973.
By that time, the Act was extended to Chandigarh, the tenant had already suffered a decree but he was still in possession of the tenanted premises when the execution petition was filed by the landlord seeking execution of the said decree.
Notice of vacating the premises and handing over the possession was given on October 22, 2001 and as the respondent failed to vacate the premises, suit was filed on February 11, 2002.
1 companytinued with the suit, recorded the evidence of the plaintiff and ultimately decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated December 12, 2008.
This suit was filed, after terminating the tenancy, by the landlord, namely, father of the appellants predecessor of the appellants under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
In the instant case, the premises in question were in rural area in respect of which suit was filed by the appellants on February 11, 2002.
In the suit, brother of the respondent, Yasin, was also impleaded as a defendant, who did number appear and was proceeded ex parte.
As pointed out above, at the relevant time suit property was in rural area and, therefore, number companyered by the said Rent Act, 1973.
The ground taken was that shop was let out to one Rehmat who inducted his son respondent defendant herein as a sub tenant without the companysent of the landlords.
The Trial Court, however, after striking off defence of Respondent No.
Against this decree, respondent number 1 filed Civil Appeal No.
House in dispute was situate in Chandigarh.
Insofar as, Respondent No.
