L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 8935-CII of 2012

1. Learned counsel for the applicant-respondents seeks permission to withdraw the instant application for appointment of Local Commissioner.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

Main Case

Defendant-Harjit Kaur having lost in both the courts below has filed this second appeal.

Facts in this case are not very much in dispute. Respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for possession of demised shop by ejectment of defendant-appellant and for recovery of ` 16,200/- as arrears of rent since 01.01.2004 till 30.09.2004 along with charges for use and occupation of the demised shop w.e.f. 01.10.2004. It is undisputed that defendant-appellant was tenant in the demised shop under the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants tenancy was terminated by serving requisite notice. It was pleaded that defendant was in arrears of rent for the aforesaid period at agreed rate of ` 1800/- per month.

2. The defendant pleaded the rate of rent to be ` 1500/- per month. Other averments of the plaintiffs were also controverted.

3. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2007 decreed the plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this second appeal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

5. It is undisputed that provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short, the Rent Act) were not applicable to the demised shop when the suit was instituted on 01.11.2004. It is also undisputed that during pendency of the suit, provisions of the Rent Act became applicable to the demised shop w.e.f. 01.04.2005.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on judgment of this Court in case of J.U. Katyal and another v. Krishan Kapur and anothers, : 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 7 : : 2005 (1) PLR 558, contended that since the provisions of the Rent Act were made applicable to the demised shop during pendency of the suit, the civil Court ceased to have jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of ejectment of defendant-tenant from the demised shop and only the Rent Controller got jurisdiction to decide ejectment petition in accordance with the Rent Act. It was also contended that the decree passed by the Civil Court in such circumstances cannot even be executed, as held by this Court in Ram Narain & others v. Ram Lal and others, : 2003 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 660.

7. On the other hand, counsel for plaintiffs relying on judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Kishan @ Krishan Kumar & others v. Manoj Kumar & others, : 1998 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 283: 1998 (2) SCC 710 [LQ/SC/1998/205] and judgment of this Court in Basakha Singh v. Mani Ram Bhatia, : 2007(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 384; : 2007 (1) LH (P&H) 156, contended that since Rent Act was not applicable to the demised shop at the time of filing of the suit, the eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs has been rightly decreed by the Courts below and the said decree can be executed, notwithstanding that the Rent Act became applicable to the demised shop during pendency of the suit.

8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Judgments of this court in the cases of J.U. Katyal & another (supra) and Ram Narain & others (supra) do support the contention of learned senior counsel for the defendant-appellant. However, the same cannot be followed in view of judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shiri Krishan @ Krishan Kumar (supra). In that case, eviction suit was filed in Civil Court while the premises were exempted from the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short, the Haryana Rent Act). However, exemption period lapsed during pendency of the suit and provisions of the Haryana Rent Act became applicable to the demised property. In these circumstances, the Supreme court held that eviction decree passed by Civil Court after expiry of exemption period and after provisions of the Haryana Rent Act became applicable to the demised property, could be executed. In view of this categorical judgment of Honble Supreme Court, in the instant case, Civil Court had jurisdiction to pass the ejectment decree, notwithstanding that the Rent Act became applicable to the demised shop during pendency of the suit, and such a decree can be executed. The Rent Act was not applicable to the demised shop when the suit was filed. Consequently applicability of the Rent Act to the demised shop during pendency of the suit, would not divest the Civil Court of jurisdiction and would not make the consequent decree of ejectment inexecutable. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this second appeal. The only question of law raised in the second appeal as noticed hereinbefore stands answered authoritatively by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan @ Krishan Kumar (supra) against defendant/tenant/appellant and in favour of plaintiffs/respondents/landlords. Hence the instant appeal is dismissed.