1. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant has challenged order dated 23.12.2022, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Amb, District Una, H.P., in terms whereof an application filed under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 11-D thereof and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, by the petitioner/defendant, stood dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

2. The Controversy involved in the present petition is in a very narrow compass. Respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the petitioner/defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) as also for recovery of arrears and recovery of damages, which is still pending adjudication. The suit land is situated in village Amb Khas, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. During the pendency of this suit, in terms of a notification issued by the State Government, the area, where the suit land is situated, was brought under the purview of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. This led to the defendant filing of an application under Order 7, Rule 10 and 11-D of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 thereof, inter alia praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that as the suit premises stood declared to have been situated in urban area by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and as now the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, had become applicable, which provided for control of rent and eviction qua the suit premises area, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected.

3. Learned Trial Court has dismissed this application vide order dated 23.12.2022 by holding that in terms of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Shankar Lal Nadani vs. Sohanlal Jain (2022) SC 318 and Rajender Bansal and others vs. Bhuru (dead) through Legal Representatives, (2017) 4SCC 202, it stood held that the rights of the parties have to be determined on the date of filing of the case and further there was no provision in the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, excluding the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in respect of the pending suits.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this petition.

5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties at length and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

6. The moot issue involved in the present petition is as to whether learned Trial Court was correct in holding that the applicability of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, having been extended over the area where the suit premises was situated, after the filing of the suit, did not preclude the continuation of the suit

7. It is not the case of the petitioner that at the time when the suit was filed by the respondents, the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, was applicable in the area where suit premises are situated. It is thus an admitted fact that at that relevant time, the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, were not applicable in the area where the suit premises was situated.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajender Bansal and others vs. Bhuru (dead) Though Legal Representatives and others (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 202, while dealing with almost akin factual situation has held that if under the scheme of the Rent Act, no provision is made excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of the pending cases expressly or impliedly, as the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of institution of the suit, therefore, the law applicable on the date of filing of the suit will continue to apply until the suit is disposed of or adjudicated. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in this judgment that if during the pendency of the suit, the Rent Act becomes applicable to the premises in question, that would be of no consequence and it would not take away the jurisdiction of the civil court to dispose of a suit validly instituted and in order to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court, there must be a specific provision in the Act, taking away the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of those cases also which were validly instituted before the date when protection of the Rent Act becomes applicable in respect of the said area/premises/tenancy.

9. Thereafter, in Shankarlal Nadani vs. Sohanlal Jain AIR 2022 Supreme Court 1813, Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajender Bansal and others vs. Bhuru (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and others (supra) and held that rights of the parties have to be determined on the date when lis commences, i.e. on the date of filing of the suit, as plaintiff is entitled to decree on that day when he initiated the proceedings, therefore, the rights of the parties have to be examined as on the said date.

10. A careful perusal of the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, demonstrates that there is no provision therein which expressly or impliedly excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts with regard to those civil suits which stood validly instituted before 1987 Act was made applicable to the premises in question. That being the case, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order that has been passed by learned Trial Court because as at the time when the civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs, the suit land admittedly was not falling within the area under the jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the subsequent inclusion thereof under the jurisdiction of the Act would not render the suit as non est.

11. In view of above discussion, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.