M.M.Punchhi, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal must partially succeed on the short ground that the relief given to the Plaintiff -Respondent by the Court below stands nullified by the substituted Sub -section (3) of Section I of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.
(2.) THE Plaintiff -Respondent claimed construction and completion of a non -residential building after March 31, 1962, which he rented out to the Defendant -Appellant on March 19, 1966. Foundationally, it was a building to which the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 did not apply by virtue of Section I, Sub -section (3), which was in the following terms: (3) Nothing in this Act shall apply to - (i) any residential building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion. (ii) any non -residential building construction of which is completed after the 31st March. 1962; (iii) any rented land let out on or after 31st March, 1962. The Defendant -Appellant could not resist his eviction successfully, but had been in the process of gaining time by filing a first appeal in the lower appellate court and the present appeal in this Court when Haryana Act 16 of 1978 passed on May 8, 1978 has come to his rescue so as to substitute from its inception Sub -section (3) of Section 1 of the Act afore -quoted with a new Sub -section so as to read as follows: (3) Nothing in this Act shall apply to building the construction of which is completed on or after the commencement of this Act for a period of ten years from the date of its completion." This knocks off the foundation of the Plaintiff -Respondent's case. The Act, as it now stands gives exemption of applicability to newly constructed buildings for a period of ten years from their completion and has withdrawn exemptions to buildings completed prior to the enforcement of the Act on April 27, 1973. Concededly, the building in question was constructed before that date. It was the Plaintiff -Respondent's own case that his building was exempt from the provisions of the Act and it now having not remained so, attracts the provisions there of barring jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to grant a decree for eviction which would remain in executable. It remains beyond challenge that the Legislature, in its wisdom can even take away vested rights. However, the recovery of Rs. 2,430/ - (Two thousand four hundred and thirty only) as arrears of rent would remain recoverable despite the aforesaid amendment, in a Civil Court. The mere fact that the sum representing arrears of rent, on account of the termination of tenancy by a Notice, had to be claimed as damages, for use and occupation, would not alter the character of the sum claimed and/the purpose of the claim. The decree vis -a -vis Rs. 2430/ - would have to be maintained on that score. No challenge was even made to this part of the case by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
(3.) IN the result, the appeal is partially accepted to the extent that the suit of the Plaintiff -Respondent for possession of the suit property stands dismissed, but would stand decreed vis -a -vis the sum of Rs. 2,400/ -, as arrears of rent. The judgment and decrees of the Court below are modified to the extent indicated. No costs.;