SHIV KUMAR Vs. JASMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants filed a suit for ejectment of the respondent from the shop in dispute and for the recover of Rs. 1200/- as arrears of rent alleging that it was let out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- on 30.12.1978 and that the tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 17.3.1980. It was further alleged that the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act were not applicable as the demised premises were exempt from its applicability for a period of ten years from the date of its completion.

(2.) THE respondent contested the suit and denied all the material allegations made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue were framed :-

(3.) AT the motion hearing, the appeal came up before K.S. Bhalla, J. was admitted it and ordered to be heard with R.S.A. No. 3162/86 which was admitted to D.B. because of the conflict in two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Kanhiya Lal Aggarwal v. Om Parkash Rajput, 1986(1) RCR 280; 1985 Haryana Rent Reporter 670 and Ishwar Singh Punia v. Atma Ram Mittal, 1986(1) RCR 229. By the time the appeal came up for hearing before us, the conflict in the said two decisions, which was the result of two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court in Firm Amar Nath Basheshar Dass v. Tek Chand, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1548; 1972 RCR 380 and Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadehra, 1987(1) RCR 320; AIR 1985 Supreme Court 817, was set a strest by a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Marwah and others v. Samundri Devi, 1987(2)RCR 412; AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2248 and the view expressed in Firm Amar Nath's case (supra) that if the suit was filed prior to the expiry of the exemption period of ten years, the Rent Restriction Act would not be applicable was affirmed. Accordingly, the decision in Kanhiya Lal Aggarwal's case (supra) is affirmed and the other one in Ishwar Singh Punia's case (supra) is overruled.