- (1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal raising a question of jurisdiction. Gian Chand, plaintiff-appellant, sued Chhaju Ram, defendant-respondent, for ejectment of the latter from the premises in dispute after serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was an ordinary suit for ejectment of a tenant by a landlord under the general law. The plaintiff came to Court with the plea that he had constructed the shop in dispute in the year 1961 and that in view of notification No. 12431-ICI-63/45658, dated the 27th December, 1963, as published in the Punjab Gazette, Extraordinary, of that date, issued under Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Punjab Act 3 of 1949), referred to hereinafter as the Act, the said building stood exempted from the operation of the Act for a period of five years from the date of its completion. It was, therefore, urged that the suit was maintainable and remedy had not been sought under the Act. The defendant-respondent did not challenge the relationship of landlord and tenant and the sole controversy between the parties hinged on the question whether the suit property could be said to have been a newly constructed building within the meaning of the said notification. The trial Court came to the conclusion that it was a new construction and, therefore, the provisions of the Act did not apply. The suit was accordingly decreed on 28th May, 1865. The respondent being aggrieved from the decree and judgment of the trial Court took an appeal to the District Judge, Gurdaspur who allowed the same and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. He was of the view that there was no new construction made and it was as a matter merely of making alterations in the old building. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.
(2.) There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Kundan Lal Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contends that on the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the only conclusion that can reasonably be reached is that a new building was constructed in the year 1961 and in view of the exemption as contained in the notification referred to above, the suit of the plaintiff appellant was triable in a Civil Court and had been rightly decreed. The notification as issued under Section 3 of the Act reads as under :- "In supersession of the Punjab Government, Local Government Department Notification No. 3941-CIII-60/45906, dated the 8th August, 1960, and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Punjab Act III of 1949), the Governor of Punjab is pleased to exempt every building constructed during the years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, for a period of five years, with effect from the date of its completion."
(3.) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when alterations, additions or modifications made in a building amount to a new construction within the meaning of the above notification and each case will have to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. The object of giving unlimited power to the State Government to exempt a building or a class of buildings is to encourage new construction. If a landlord invests substantial amount of money in the alterations, additions and modifications of a building so as to strikingly change its complex, he should be entitled to the benefit of the new investment and also to claim back possession of the property from the tenant if he so desires. The history of the building in dispute leaves no room for doubt that in the year 1961 the plaintiff-appellant must be held to have constructed a new building as contemplated in the notification. The premises as originally occupied by the tenant could hardly be said to be a building as commonly so understood. It was almost a temporary wooden stall with broken brick walls and a peepa tin roof. As a matter of fact, the shed was not being supported by the walls but by wooden bamboos. The defendant-respondent asked the plaintiff to get the shop reconstructed for him and a plan was accordingly got sanctioned from the Municipal Committee. The construction was entrusted to Jagan Nath brother of Chhaju Ram the defendant. A dispute arose between the plaintiff and Chhaju Ram who filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1583/- from the former on account of cost of the construction. Some money was said to have been paid to him by the plaintiff in advance. The trial Court decreed the suit for Rs. 1583/- with costs by its judgment, Exhibit P. 4. The following are the concurrent findings of both the Courts below in the present case :- (1) Two walls were altogether constructed a new with new bricks on old foundations wherein too some new bricks were used. (2) The peepa tin shed was replaced by a concrete cemented roof with lintel using pukka bricks. (3) All the four walls were replastered with cement. (4) A pukka floor was constructed in the entire shop. (5) The shop had no entrances and two exits and now wooden doors with regular frames were provided. As found by the Court of first appeal, considerable amount was spent on the so-called repairs or alterations. In my opinion, the modifications and alterations, as carried out in the instant case amounted to a new construction so as to exempt the shop from operation of the Act by virtue of the notification referred to above. Since the applicability of the Act was not attracted a suit in the ordinary civil Court was competent and the lower Appellate Court was in error in holding that the construction was in the nature of mere repairs and alterations and that the remedy lay under the Act.;