Viney Mittal, J. - (1.)The appellant before this court is a tenant. A suit for possession by way of eviction filed by the landlord has been decreed by the trial court. The appeal of the tenant has been dismissed by the first appellate Court.
(2.)It was claimed by the plaintiff-landlord that the sanction for raising the construction of the building in question had been granted by the Municipal Committee, Rohtak on November 7, 1988 and the construction was completed on October 27,1989. The premises in question had been let-out to the tenant on September 5,1990. On that basis it was claimed by the landlord that since a new building was exempted from the provisions of the Rent Act for a period of 10 years, therefore, the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff was maintainable before the civil court. It was pleaded that the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated with effect from February 28,1995 on service of a notice issued under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence the suit in question was filed. The plaintiff also claimed recovery of mense profit for use and occupation of the premises.
(3.)The trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the defendant failed before the appellate court. The only argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant-appellant is that although the suit in question was filed by the plaintiff-landlord on April 21,1995 when the period of 10 years had not expired from the date of completion of the building but during the pendency of the litigation, the aforesaid period of 10 years having expired, the provisions of Haryana Urban( Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,1973 have become applicable and as such decree for possession against the tenant-appellant could not have been passed.