G.R.MAJITHIA,J - (1.) THE plaintiffs have come up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court partially reversing on appeal those of the trial Judge and dismissing the suit for possession of the shop in dispute.
(2.) THE facts :- Appellant No. 1/plaintiff No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of the possession of the shop and for mesne profits on the ground that he became the owner of the shop in a family partition. His father/plaintiff No. 2/appellant No. 2 rented out the shop to the defendant on 23.5.1972 at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month exclusive of house-tax. The construction of the shop was completed after March 31, 1962 and the provisions of the Haryana Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') were not applicable and the suit in the civil Court for recovery of possession of the shop was maintainable. The trial Judge decreed the suit for recovery of possession and also for arrears of rent. On appeal by the tenant, the first appellate Court reversed the decree of trial Judge to the extent it had passed a decree for possession with regard to the shop in dispute and in all other respects the decree of the trial Judge was maintained. The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal against the decree of the first appellate Court whereby the relief of possession regarding the shop in dispute was declined. The conclusion of the first appellate Court that the suit for possession of the shop was not maintainable in the civil Court is correct but for different reasons. There is no dispute that the construction of shop in dispute was completed in the year 1967. The precise question which arises for determination is whether the demised premises are exempt from the purview of the Act. It is undisputed that the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Punjab Act') were applicable to the territories forming part of the State of Haryana before the enactment of the Act. Section 3 of the Punjab Act gave unlimited power of exemption to the State Government. In exercise of this power, Governor of Haryana vide Notification No. 5601-S.T.A.71/30701 dated 22.10.1971 exempted every building constructed during the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 from the provisions of the Punjab Act for a period of five years from the date of exemption. The demised premises were constructed in the year 1967 during the period the exemption was granted from the provisions of the Punjab Act. The Haryana Act received the assent of Governor on April 25, 1973. Section 24 of the said Act deals with the repeal and savings. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act says that notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the Act so repealed (including any rule, notification or order made) which is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act as if this Act were in force at the time such thing was done or action was taken, and shall continue to be in force unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act. By virtue of this provision, the notification issued under the Punjab Act exempting certain buildings from the purview of that Act was not inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Haryana Act or the rules made thereunder. The enforcement of the Haryana Act with effect from April 25, 1973, would not adversely affect the validity of the notification issued under the Punjab Act. The construction of the demised premises was completed in the year 1967 during the period the premises were exempted from the provisions of the Punjab Act for a period of five years. The suit for possession of the shop could be filed within the exemption period which expired in the year 1971. The instant suit was filed on 16.7.1976 after the expiry of exemption period. The plaintiff did not file the suit during the period when the provisions of the Punjab Act stood excluded. After expiry of period of exemption the remedy lay only under the Haryana Act (Haryana Urban Control of the Rent and Eviction Act, 1973). The appeal, is therefore, devoid of merits and is dismissed but with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.;