- (1.)This petition arises out of the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh against the petitioner.
(2.)The facts are that respondent No. 1 filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) on March 6, 1973. The trial Court heard the arguments on May 3, 1974, and fixed the case for May 4, 1974, for pronouncement of the order. In the meantime, the respondent filed an application for leading additional evidence on May 4, 1974, and vide order dated May 16, 1974, the Rent Controller allowed the application of the respondent to lead additional evidence. This evidence also concluded on October 1, 1974, and the case was fixed for evidence in rebuttal for November 16, 1974. On this date, the Rent Controller passed the following order :-
"The notification enforcing the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to Union Territory, Chandigarh has since been quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana As such this file is ordered to be consigned."

The above said order was passed by the Court in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Dr. Harkishan Singh v. Union of India etc.,1974 RCR(Cri) 520 wherein it was field that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, cannot be deemed to have been adopted by the Punjab Reorganisation (Chandigarh) (Adaptation of law in State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1968. Since the statutory period of two years provided in section 89 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 empowering the Central Government 4 to adopt has expired and that the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which has become the dead Act after November 1, 1969, can no longer be adopted. This Act was made applicable to Chandigarh to protect the tenants at the hands of the landlords. It was after a great and persistent demand of the public in general and tenants in particular that the Central Government had extended the Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. After the Fall Bench judgment in Dr. Harkishan Singh's case , the tenants were again left unprotected and in order to save the tenants and also the pending litigation between the landlords and tenants, Act 54 of 1974 known as the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974, was passed by the Central Government. The statement of Objects and Reasons for the Act, which was published in the Central Government Gazette dated November 12, 1974, in part II, section (page 1030), is reproduced below

"The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which seeks to regulate rents of the premises situated within urban areas and the eviction of tenants from such premises was passed by the Legislature of the composite State of Punjab. This Act came into force on 23rd March, 1949 and extended to areas administered by a municipal committee or a notified area committee. Under section 2(j) of the Act, the State Government was empowered to declare any other area to be an urban area for the purposes of the Act.

2. On the assumption that the relevant provisions of the Act continued to be in force in the territories comprising the Union Territory of Chandigarh by virtue of section 86 and other provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, the Central Government issued a notification under section 2(j) thereof declaring Chandigarh Capital Project area to be an urban area for the purposes of the Act. The notification came into effect from the 4th November, 1972 on its publication in the Gazette of India. As a result of two writ petitions challenging the validity of the notification, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the East Punjab Act was not in actual operation in the territories now comprising the Union Territory of Chandigarh on 1st November 1966, that is, the date when this Union Territory came into existence and consequently no action could have been taken no under any provision of the Act in relation to Chandigarh. The Court has accordingly quashed the notification declaring Chandigarh Capital Project area as an urban area.

(3.)Consequent upon the application of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949, to Chandigarh Capital Project Area, the tenants were given protection against exorbitant rents and arbitrary eviction. As a result of the judgment of the High Court, a large number of applications pending before the Rent Controllers and the appeals pending before the appellate authorities would become liable to be dismissed and this will cause serious problems. It is, therefore, considered necessary to extend the said Act to Chandigarh with retrospective effect and also to validate the action purported to have been taken under the Act."
Section 4 of the Act which deals with validation and saying reads as under :-

"4. Validation and Saving.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, anything done or any action taken (including any notification or direction issued or rent fixed or permission granted or order made) or purported to have been done or taken under the Act shall be deemed to be as valid and effective as if the lie provisions of this Act had been in force at all material times when such thing was done or such action was taken.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall render any person guilty of any contravention of the provisions of the Act which occurred before the commencement of this Act."

3. From a bare reading of this section and objects and reasons of the Act, as published in the Central Government Gazette, there is no manner of doubt left that this enactment was made to save the tenants from arbitrary eviction and to save the applications pending before Rent Controllers and the appeals before the appellate authorities etc., that the Act is deemed to be void and effective as if the provisions of the Act had been in force at all material times. After the passing of this Act, the Rent Controller issued notice to the petitioner vide his order dated January 23, 1975. The petitioner then made an application, after notice, on February 24, 1975, praying therein that a copy of the application for restoration of the ejectment application be supplied to him and that he was prepared to tender arrears of rents. This application was dismissed on May 16, 1975, by the Rent Controller on the ground that he had already restored the ejectment application vide order dated January 23, 1975. It is against these two orders that the present petition has been filed that the ex-parte order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh dated 23, 1975 restoring the ejectment application at is original number and also the order dated May 16, 1975, dismissing the application of the petitioner be set aside.